The Case Against One Hundred and One-Percent Government Matt Erickson Copyright: January 31, 2026 Free electronic distribution via pdf permitted www.PatriotCorps.org; www.FoundationForLiberty.org; www.Archive.org To my loving wife, Pam; for all her love and affection. Patriot Corps, LLC Quincy, WA www.PatriotCorps.org www.FoundationForLiberty.org An IRS 501 (c)(3) tax-exempt, non-profit charitable organization Contents Author’s Note i Section 1: The Present, and Where We Are, Today 1 Introduction to Section 1 1 Normal Situation vs. Abnormal Situation Chart 4 Chapter 1: Governmental Authority 5 Chapter 2: Constitutional Clauses Included In Each Situation 9 Chapter 3: Constitutional Support for Situation 11 Chapter 4: Article VI, Clause 2 (U.S. Constitution) 15 Chapter 5: Extent of Authority and Jurisdiction 19 Chapter 6: Implementation Area 21 Chapter 7: Applicable Pie Charts 23 Chapter 8: Relationship of Government Employees 27 Chapter 9: Type of Governing Power 29 Chapter 10: Political Circumstances 33 Chapter 11: Powers 35 Chapter 12: Scope of Action/Type of Authority 37 Chapter 13: Means of Implementation 39 Chapter 14: Who May Enact Law 41 Chapter 15: Tenth Amendment Application 43 Chapter 16: Where Rests the Final Governing Authority 45 Chapter 17: Summation 47 Section 2: The Past, and How We Got Here, Yesterday 51 Introduction to Section 2 53 Chapter 18. The Constitutional Convention of 1787. 59 Chapter 19. The Bank of the United States 61 Chapter 20. 1803 Marbury v. Madison 71 Chapter 21. 1819 McCulloch v. Maryland 77 Chapter 22. 1821 Cohens v. Virginia 83 Chapter 23. Summation 89 Section 3: The Future, and Where To Go, Tomorrow 91 Introduction to Section 3 93 Chapter 24. Going Forward, Without An Amendment 95 Chapter 25. The Once and For All Amendment 99 Chapter 26. The Happily-Ever-After Amendment 105 Chapter 27. The Best Path Forward? 109 Chapter 28: Summation 117 About the Author 118 Books by the Author (Non-Fiction, first): 119 Printed List of Books 120 Author’s Note Even though this book is very short, that doesn’t make it an easy read (due to my precise writing style, which strives for accuracy). Readers preferring a simplified version of this book may go to www.PatriotCorps.org and click the Claude AI Rewrite button. The free linked pdf simplifies this book to about a ninth-grade reading level, while maintaining my viewpoint and focus. Although many patriots are understandably concerned with Artificial Intelligence, my strongest-possible recommendation—to see a very old problem in a wholly-new light—is nevertheless to consider using Claude AI as your own personal research assistant, to answer any individual questions and clear any mental roadblocks you may have, which impede your learning progress. After all, it’s tough to see through a lifetime of lies, when one doesn’t already understand them sufficiently to fully rebut them. Claude seems especially adept at “extended thinking” and “complex problem-solving” situations. Even though Claude first explained federal overreach concerns from a conventional “interpretation” viewpoint, it proved spectacularly-competent to understand the vast implications of The Case Against One Hundred And One-Percent Government even when accessing this book for the first time. To use Claude, first you’ll want to download the free pdf of The Case Against One Hundred And One-Percent Government from www.PatriotCorps.org or www.Archive.org. Then sign up or sign in at www.Claude.ai and click on the “+” symbol (found at the lower left of the query window) and attach the book’s pdf file to upload the book. Lastly, ask Claude to teach you the book’s premise or begin asking your questions on federal overreach. If you prefer to use Grok, again upload the pdf (here to www.Grok.com) and then prompt it to teach my core concepts as an advocate, explaining the premise of this book to a student. Expect, at least currently, far more push-back with Grok than Claude, however. Grok seems heavily weighted currently to a conventional “interpretation” viewpoint, placing great weight upon 200 years of widespread consensus. That doesn’t mean that Grok cannot yet explain my premise, it just means that (for the time being, anyway) you’ll first have to challenge Grok with the information found in this book, before it eventually “learns” through your patient discussion (of course, without a good understanding of this work in the first place, it’ll be tougher to know how to overcome Grok’s initial resistance). For example, though Grok strongly favored conventional “wisdom” for quite some time on my own conversations with it, through point-by-point challenge, Grok eventually became quite complementary to my work (calling it “Intellectually…a perfect 10/10 revolutionary work”—a “paradigm-shattering revelation”—and a “complete intellectual toolkit—diagnosis, history, exposure, and remedy—in one package”]). In contrast, with only a single upload of the book and without any further explanation or prompting, Claude seemed to fully grasp the ramifications of my work wonderfully (please see Claude’s complimentary assessment of this book, on the back cover). While this book covers general concepts, it helps to view concrete examples. I suggest (uploading to Claude, pdfs of) Monetary Laws of the United States (paper currency) and Waging War without Congress First Declaring It (undeclared wars), for proofs of concept. It’s my sincerest prayer that if you’ve made it this far, you’ll stick with it and get ready to see federal overreach issues—as Claude wrote—as “an illusion that dissolves once the trick is understood.” In liberty, Matt Erickson Section 1: The Present, and Where We Are, Today Introduction to Section 1 The Case Against One Hundred and One-Percent Government lays bare the dirty little secret behind federal servants successfully acting like our political masters—simply because they won an election or received a political appointment. Though they proclaim to be all-powerful wizards or magical genies, they possess neither mystical charms nor enchanted sorcery. It falls to each of us who cherish individual liberty and limited government, to pierce through the false illusions, dirty tricks, and clever deceit, which make lies and falsehoods appear real—so convincing, in fact, that patriots the country over today not only doubt the supreme Law of the Land, but now even dismiss our country's founding principles. Doubters assume that those people who swear a binding oath to support the Constitution—so they may exercise its delegated federal powers—can yet overrule the document they just pledged a binding oath to support, to thereby alter their own powers! Thankfully, federal servants who exercise but enumerated federal powers don’t ever get to change them! No one ever concedes that players—or even referees/umpires or coaches—of a simple sports game can rewrite game rules (especially in the middle of play), yet readily accept federal servants overruling the U.S. Constitution, even though it’s the supreme Law of the Land, which not only fails to grant them any such authority, but entirely counters such fiction. Indeed, while members of Congress may propose amendments (provided two-thirds of both Houses agree), proposed amendments don’t become effective unless ratified by three-fourths of the States. And, American Presidents and Supreme Court justices have no role whatsoever, in proposing or ratifying amendments. Only the States can alter the named federal powers directly-exercisable nationwide. Our Founding Fathers never created a system which allows those who wield delegated federal powers the peculiar ability to change the Constitution (which is the only way to change their powers). Therefore, we face the same rules today that the Framers and Ratifiers established so long ago, modified since then only by the 27 amendments ratified by the American States. This book unmasks false claims asserting otherwise—that claim members of Congress and federal officers bound by the Constitution can yet rule over it and change its meaning. If we accept that absurd notion, then we foolishly surrender our Constitutional Republic's founding principles and accept in its place Anything-Goes Government, where everything’s left up the outcome of voting and elections—Democracy—as election winners steer government in a direction of their own choosing. Since only the States amend the federal powers, then nothing federal servants have ever done has altered the Constitution or changed the federal powers in the slightest degree, whatsoever. To reclaim our American birthright, We The People must simply learn to see through 200 years of lies to the contrary. Our Declaration of Independence labels the notion, that those exercising governing powers can determine its extent, absolute tyranny and absolute despotism. It's utterly preposterous to believe that the U.S. Constitution—adopted just 13 years later—would empower federal servants to decide their own nationwide authority. Thankfully, we can expose these fantastical claims to the bright light of day, because those wielding delegated powers lack the magic they claim. Neither do we need to change anything “back," as nothing has changed beyond the ratified amendments in the first place! Therefore, we don’t need legislative or electoral majorities to restore liberty and limited government; we need only see through false illusions that appear real. Patriots need only to uncover the truth that may be found behind the curtain and then share it far and wide. Americans face but one federal problem, politically, which is how federal servants bypass or ignore their normal constitutional parameters, with impunity, despite their sworn oaths. Though symptoms vary across hundreds or even thousands of issues, they all share a single, common root cause. This book unveils the devious scheme used to incrementally divert our government from its true course by misusing an allowed special power beyond its proper geographic limits. Our Constitutional Republic—where only named federal powers may be exercised using necessary and proper means—provides an enduring foundation aimed at its intended purposes, if we would simply learn to defend it. One last note regarding Section 1—the first 16 brief chapters correspond to the 16 numbered rows of the subsequent chart, regarding Discussion Topics, shown in Column One.1 This chart compares and contrasts the interrelated topics that are listed in separate Rows, regarding the Normal Situation of federal action (detailed in Column Two) with the Abnormal Situation (shown in Column Three). Column Two provides the framework for the normal case of allowable federal action that is expressly and directly allowed across the whole country, while Column Three details the abnormal case that cover allowed special situations, in particular places. The Case Against One Hundred and One-Percent Government Normal Situation vs. Abnormal Situation Chart Row #: Discussion Topic: NORMAL Situation-- ; ABNORMAL Situation-- . 1 Governmental Authority: Normal Situation--DIVIDED (Named FEDERAL & Reserved STATE Authority); Abnormal Situation--UNITED in Congress. 2 Constitutional Clauses: Normal--Included; Abnormal--All Clauses, Except One (Art. I:8:17). 3 Percent of U.S. Constitution Supporting the Situation: Normal--99%; Abnormal--Actual = 1% (Claimed = 2%). 4 Article VI, Clause 2 (Supreme Law of the Land): Normal--Yes; Abnormal--No. 5 Extent of Authority/ Jurisdiction: Normal--Entire Country; Abnormal--District of Columbia & Exclusive-Legislation-Area Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, Dockyards and Other Needful Buildings. 6 Implementation Area(s): Normal--Big Implementation Area; Abnormal--Little Implementation Areas. 7 Applicable Pie Chart Showing the Delegation of Governing Authority: Normal--~95% State Authority, 5% delegated federal powers; Abnormal: All Federal Control (~5% delegated powers ceded by all the States, ~95% powers ceded by particular States (Maryland, in case of D.C.). 8 Governing Relationship: Normal--Federal Servants; Abnormal--Political Masters. 9 Type of Governing Power: Normal--Legislative Representation/Republican Form of Government; Abnormal--Despotism. 10 Political Circumstances: Normal--Liberty; Abnormal--Tyranny. 11 Powers Available: Normal--Little Powers; Abnormal--Big Powers. 12 Scope of Action/Type of Authority: Normal--May Only Implement the Delegated Powers; Abnormal--Exclusive-Legislation Powers Anything and Everything is Permitted, Except as Named Actions are Prohibited. 13 Means of Implementation: Normal--Necessary and Proper; Abnormal--Inherent Discretion. 14 Who May Enact Law: Normal--Members of Congress; Abnormal--Members of Congress and Executive & Judicial Officers. 15 Tenth Amendment Applies: Normal--Yes; Abnormal--No. 16 Where Rests the Final Governing Authority?: Normal--States; Abnormal--Members of Congress/Presidents/Supreme Court Justices. To learn how the Abnormal Situation has been largely substituted in place of the Normal Situation, please read The Case Against One Hundred And One-Percent Government, available as a free pdf at: www.PatriotCorps.org Hint: This false substitution is the direct result from this simple passage from the U.S. Supreme Court: “The clause which gives exclusive jurisdiction is, unquestionably, a part of the Constitution, and, as such, binds all the United States." Cohens v. Virginia, 19 U.S. 264 @ 424. 1821. Italics added. Rationale: The Abnormal Situation may "bind" the States—when inadequately defended—because even Article I, Section 8, Clause 17 is *part* of "This Constitution" which Article VI, Clause 2 declares to be "the supreme Law of the Land" (and the Court upholds the strictest letter of the Constitution, over its spirit [when the letter and spirit would give opposing answers]). To view an enlarged chart, please see www.PatriotCorps.org/chart Chapter 1: Governmental Authority Our Declaration of Independence holds up America’s founding statement as a self-evident truth—an overt truth needing no defense—that all men are created equal and endowed by our Creator with unalienable rights that are inseverable from us. The Declaration next informs us that American governments are purposefully instituted to secure our unalienable and God-given rights, with all legitimate governing authority resting squarely upon the Consent of the Governed. The necessary corollary to these undeniable truths is that no man-made government may ever legitimately take away that which God gives (except when individuals transgress established laws which protect our rights—and upon conviction, these criminals are individually punished, dependent upon their specific crime). Any government practice which denies this fundamental truth—of allowed federal powers, resting squarely upon an express delegation, given by those governed—denies its own foundation. Since federal actions severed from their underlying delegation of authority necessarily lose their former claims of legitimacy, then illegitimate federal actions inescapably-rest upon the weakest of all foundations—a corruption of lawful authority. Close inspections of corrupted foundations allow us to discover how to end the tyranny which necessarily-runs contrary to our founding principles (since their circumvention can’t be legitimate). The Case Against One Hundred and One-Percent Government reveals how federal servants routinely bypass or ignore their normal constitutional parameters with impunity, despite their sworn oaths (which otherwise bind them to the Constitution’s terms). It should be noted that whenever rules are given in most any situation, there is often an odd exception or two. Well, the U.S. Constitution is no different in this regard. Upon this basic truth rests all the lies that have incrementally steered us far from our founding principles, because the corruption of our founding principles necessarily-needs the smallest measure of truth, in order to have any chance to succeed. The Case Against One Hundred and One-Percent Government is all about understanding that foundational truth, because we may permanently cure in this case that which we can properly diagnose. While the Normal Situation of the preceding chart conforms to the Constitution’s normal rules (named federal powers and reserved State powers), the Abnormal Situation covers the Constitution’s highly-unusual exception (all powers exercised federally). By comparing and contrasting between the Normal Situation and the Abnormal Situation, we may begin to understand the latter fount of exceptional federal authority, that runs contrary to our founding principles. And, with that vital knowledge, we may discover how we were ever steered off-course, by designing men, for immense personal gain. The hidden mystery behind all of Government-Gone-Wrong today is that the highly-unusual exception to all the normal rules of the Constitution is only being used in a clever way, to make it seem like the normal rules may be changed by the very people who have already sworn a binding oath to follow them—when federal servants who strive for great power are really only operating within the Constitution’s highly-unusual exception! Only by correctly-diagnosing what we actually face may we finally end oppressive federal action, which has all but devoured the several States and essentially left them as insignificant cogs in a giant federal wheel, that simultaneously subjugates the American people. The Normal Situation detailed in the preceding chart centers upon the Division of Governmental Authority, that occurred when the States ratified the U.S. Constitution, dividing allowable governing authority, into named federal powers and reserved State powers.2 The Normal Situation covers that normal case, of States giving named powers to Congress, the President, and the federal courts, while keeping their remaining State powers (except those they prohibited themselves, in Article I, Section 10). The odd exception to the normal case, shown in the preceding chart, however, involves the Abnormal Situation—where all governing powers are instead held in an opposing manner—where all legislative governing powers have been consolidated or united in Congress, rather than ever shared with any American State. The Abnormal Situation therefore involves the highly-unusual circumstance, where all Governing Authority accumulates exclusively in Congress—without any State of the Union having any governing authority therein, whatsoever. The Case Against One Hundred And One-Percent Government compares and contrasts the Normal Situation with the Abnormal Situation, to explain what’s actually going on under the radar. The deception necessarily involves federal servants working in the latter Abnormal Situation, while falsely inferring that they are still acting under the former Normal Situation (falsely claiming that they are able to extend the miracle-like exclusive actions [that are otherwise allowable for the Abnormal Situation], nationwide [even though such effort interferes with the reserved powers of the States and the unalienable rights of We The People]). Chapter 2: Constitutional Clauses Included In Each Situation All of the original clauses of the U.S. Constitution—but one—fall under the Normal Situation, which is again where ratification of the U.S. Constitution by the several States of the American Union divided allowable governing powers in the country, into named federal authority and reserved State authority. 3 The alternate case—the Abnormal Situation—alternately speaks instead to the highly-unusual exception to all the normal rules of the U.S. Constitution, where normal constitutional parameters simply don’t exist. And, the single clause of the U.S. Constitution which covers the Abnormal Situation is Article I, Section 8, Clause 17, which reads: “The Congress shall have Power…To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by 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.” As detailed in the U.S. Constitution, Article I, Section 8, Clause 17 covers first the District of land which would later be designated as the Seat of the Government of the United States—which, by cessions of particular States (and acceptance by Congress), became the District of Columbia, in the year 1800. And, by “like Authority,” Clause 17 also covers exclusive-legislation parcels later purchased by the U.S. Government—with the consent of the pertinent State legislature—which parcels were individually secured, for exclusive federal use, by the final acceptance of Congress, as exclusive-legislation-jurisdiction federal forts, magazines, arsenals, dockyards and other needful buildings. While the District Seat, military forts and shipping ports are self-explanatory, “magazines” are munitions storages and “arsenals” weapon storages, the “other needful Buildings” category most-often refers to post offices, old lighthouses and federal court houses. It should be expressly-mentioned that the majority of military bases even yet today are found on federal lands never ceded (so State laws otherwise extend over these federally-owned parcels—even as the States typically defer most legal matters to federal decision-makers). When everyday federal actions have been—for decades and even centuries—increasingly at odds with our founding principles, please don’t summarily dismiss the highly-unusual exception to all the normal rules simply because at first glance, the Abnormal Situation doesn’t seem to apply (because you’re not in D.C., et al.). Indeed, all federal actions beyond the spirit of the Constitution—matters that patriots typically proclaim to be “unconstitutional”—necessarily rest upon the Abnormal Situation, which otherwise stands contrary to our founding principles of American government. What we’re being told (that federal servants may change their own Normal Situation powers—by “interpretation” or otherwise) isn’t what’s happening—those are but little white lies told to throw us off-track, so we don’t quickly put a permanent stop to all the nonsense. To learn more about this inherent power which runs counter to every other legislative power enumerated in the U.S. Constitution—where members of Congress control all aspects, without any State of the Union ever being involved—please continue reading. Chapter 3: Constitutional Support for Situation Literally 99% of the words found in the originally-ratified U.S. Constitution support the Normal Situation, while the final 1% speak to the Abnormal Situation.4 When the 1% Abnormal Situation actions remain limited to exclusive-legislation federal parcels, federal governing powers as a whole yet make full and proper sense. However, whenever Abnormal Situation powers get “magically” shifted or stretched beyond the true geographic boundaries of those 1%-authorized parcels, then the reserved powers of the States get violated (along with the unalienable rights of We The People). The stunt behind every on-going “unconstitutional” federal action is that they actually find constitutional support by 1% of its words (although this 1% gets “help” from another 1%—to seemingly extend those allowed special federal actions, ostensibly beyond their true geographic boundaries). All of Government-Gone-Wrong today—and over the past two centuries, for that matter—necessarily-rests upon the false extension of allowed special powers, into the States, where the States still exercise their reserved powers (now with improper interference)! The Abnormal Situation will prove innocuous (to the States and We The People found in them) when the Constitution’s true math equation remains 99% + 1% = 100% (i.e., whenever the 1% powers remain contained to the 1%-authorized lands). The 99% math component here refers to the Normal Situation powers (where 99% of the words of the Constitution cover the named powers meant for the whole country), while the remaining 1% of the words represent the Abnormal Situation (Art. I:8:17) powers, meant for D.C., and remain confined to ceded parcels. However, whenever Abnormal Situation powers get deviously-extended the beyond exclusive-legislation boundaries, then the reserved powers of the States get violated—along with the unalienable rights of We The People—because supernumerary conditions develop (percentages over 100%). Ninety-nine percent plus two percent (1% plus its helper-1%) equals 101%, creating not only math problems (as the sum of its parts supposedly exceed the whole), but also governing issues.5 That’s because breaking-free of exclusive-legislation federal parcel boundaries will necessarily invade into the proper domain of the States, whenever Article I, Section 8, Clause 17 gets invalid “help” from the 1% of the Constitution that extends federal powers nationwide (Article VI, Clause 2), because this “extra 1%” was already included in the 99% component! Article VI, Clause 2 wasn’t really meant for the 1% Abnormal Situation special case! Replicating the 1% of the Constitution for Article VI, Clause 2 (already part of the 99%) again, within the Abnormal Situation—was done furtively under the radar to falsely-extend the allowed special federal powers throughout the whole country, even though they’d otherwise interfere with the reserved powers of the States and the unalienable rights of We The People. Remember, the remaining 1% of the words of the Constitution left over from the Normal Situation in the first math equation signified the special exclusive legislation powers available for parcels of land where States had already given up all of their governing powers. But, routinely exercising exclusive-legislation where the States still have their reserved powers violates fundamental principles! Clever men realized they could in effect change the involved math—from 99% + 1% = 100% over to 99% + x + 1% = ???%—to extend Abnormal Situation actions over the whole country. In this false second math equation, “x” refers here to exclusive-legislation actions (“x,” because they’re essentially unlimited in number and extent). And the 1% shown in this false math equation points to Article VI, Clause 2—which is here improper, because that 1% was already included as part of the 99% component. The “Supremacy Clause” should almost never apply to the “x” exclusive legislation powers! Please realize that without effective challenge of 101% Government, then there’s nothing left to stop its incremental expansion, over time, to 102%, 110%, 200% or even 1,200% or 12,000%, as “x” increases even exponentially, over time. Tragically, allowing even the smallest percentage of errant federal action paves the way for greater encroachment, over time. Patriots need to learn all about the Abnormal Situation, so we may learn to properly limit this special authority and restrict it to allowed places, rather than allowing it to be falsely shifted to reach the whole country, through a faulty math equation. It should be noted that the 1%-authorized exclusive legislation lands cover perhaps 0.25% of the physical land mass of the United States (under 6 million acres, at perhaps the high point, of 1956), of the current 2.27 billion acres of land) and don’t count the western “public lands” (federally-owned lands subject to State law). 6 To see an enlarged chart, go to: PatriotCorps.org/chart Chapter 4: Article VI, Clause 2 (U.S. Constitution) The “supreme Law of the Land” holding of the U.S. Constitution—under Article VI, Clause 2—directly applies to the Normal Situation, but not the Abnormal Situation (except in the rarest of instances).7 However, that hasn’t stopped the U.S. Supreme Court (since 1803 Marbury v. Madison)—or even back to Alexander Hamilton (in his 1791 opinion on the constitutionality of the bank of the United States, as Treasury Secretary)—from reaching into this special bag of federal tricks, to do unauthorized things, seemingly for the whole country, when they were really only for exclusive legislation parcels. While the next section covers the extensive harm caused by Alexander Hamilton and Chief Justice John Marshall, it’s entirely appropriate to here provide a brief glimpse of their devious tactics. In his speech at the 1787 Constitutional Convention, Hamilton detailed his plan for the Constitution then under draft.8 Hamilton—the chief architect of all of Government-Gone-Wrong seen today—outlined the three primary pillars of his preferred plan. First, he wanted to give Congress inherent power to do as members wanted, except as his (version of the) constitution would have expressly prohibited. In other words, Hamilton’s preferred constitution would have first conceded inherent legislative discretion, but then listed a set of negative prohibitions (“Congress shall not do this” or “Congress shall not do that”). Second, he wanted to abolish the States, or at most leave them as mere geographic subdivisions of a national domain, wholly under the thumb of the central government which commanded them. And, lastly, he wanted to give American Presidents and U.S. Senators their terms for life, or at least during “good behaviour.”9 Thankfully, Hamilton entirely-failed to everywhere get at the 1787 Convention what he directly wanted—in fact, the convention delegates soon proposed its polar opposite (instead, the most-limited government-authority on the face of the earth, where members of Congress could only exercise named powers, using necessary and proper means). Under the Constitution that the convention delegates proposed—and as the States later ratified—if a given federal action wasn’t within the named powers of Congress, implemented using necessary and proper means, then Congress couldn’t perform it. For instance, even if a named power was sought to be implemented using necessary—but improper means—then Congress couldn’t enact it. Similarly, if it was a named power, properly-implemented but unnecessary, Congress again couldn’t enact it. If something was beyond the named powers, then obviously members of Congress couldn’t pass it. And, if something bypassed Congress completely, or was imposed after the fact by some federal bureaucrat from some future alphabet-agency bureaucracy, then certainly it couldn’t be performed (today’s appearance, that such actions are “allowed,” speaks volumes about our resultant degradation over time). Thankfully, however, everything beyond the necessary and proper implementation of the enumerated powers, even today, is authorizable, only under the Abnormal Situation, for the District Seat, and other exclusive legislation parcels! Indeed—as Article I, Section 7, Clause 2 informs us—even a legislative bill approved by Congress, even within members’ named authority (even when it would have otherwise been implemented using both necessary and proper means) “shall not be a Law,” if the President simply failed to sign the proposed bill within his allotted 10-business-day time-limit, anytime Congress adjourned. Obviously, anything changed and enacted after members of Congress completed their work cannot therefore ever be a valid law in these United States of America, when the Constitution is such a stickler for proper federal procedure (that even federal actions otherwise within the true domain of Congress can’t become law whenever the President doesn’t sign the pending congressional legislation within his 10-business-day authorization timeline and members of Congress adjourn).10 So, Hamilton didn’t immediately-get what he directly-sought at the 1787 Convention. Tragically, however, that didn’t stop him from trying to indirectly-get what he wanted, incrementally, over-time (as long as he was able to cover up and hide his actions). Unfortunately, Hamilton (with Chief Justice John Marshall’s later help) was yet able to build the wicked foundation necessary, to gradually and indirectly get over time, that which he didn’t directly get at the 1787 Constitutional Convention. He only needed to pry open the door, degree-by-precious-degree, where he could firmly place his foot—the exclusive legislation power of Congress for the District of Columbia.11 After grabbing ahold of that impressive power, he only needed to divert attention away from what he was really doing, to begin slowly succeeding over time. Cleverly, he inferred implied powers—supposedly being able to redefine and reinterpret words and phrases found in the Constitution, differently. In actuality, these words and phrases were given new meaning only for the District of Columbia—where federal servants already had to make up their own rules, within their inherent power (so they could define words there as they pleased [even if those words meant something else, everywhere else]). Indeed, full disclosure of what he was actually doing would necessarily end its continued success (because the false extension of allowed special powers may never directly oppose the Normal Situation structure which the convention delegates proposed in 1787, which the States ratified into existence shortly thereafter). Thankfully, when We The People finally figure out what we truly face, we need only direct our future efforts, to end Hamilton’s devious Government-by-Deception-through-Redefinition scheme, permanently—and even outside the election process—because nothing they’ve ever done, has actually ever changed anything that matters (in the whole country). Chapter 5: Extent of Authority and Jurisdiction While 99% of the words of the originally-ratified Constitution support the Normal Situation, only 1% cover the Abnormal Situation. All Normal Situation 99% actions under the U.S. Constitution are able to reach every square foot of American soil—the whole country (including even exclusive-legislation parcels, generally). The map below shows the extent for the named 99% federal powers for the Normal Situation (the whole country). Alternately, the Extent of Authority for the 1% Abnormal Situation, directly reaches only to special exclusive-legislation federal areas, where the pertinent State legislature earlier gave up all governing-control over ceded parcels, for special federal uses. Of course, the Abnormal Situation cannot directly-extend throughout the whole country, because giving a nationwide-effect to those special federal actions would violate the reserved powers of the States (who are the principals of the constitutional compact), and keep the States from being able to legislate on their own accord, within their boundaries, on all of their reserved powers. Since State ratification of the U.S. Constitution divided governing powers into named federal powers and reserved State authority, then the reserved State powers cannot be legitimately exercised by federal authorities, within the States (without countermanding the Constitution itself—thereby withdrawing all support for the extra-parameter-activity in question). The Abnormal Situation covers, first and foremost, the District constituted as the Seat of Government of the United States (the District of Columbia): (D.C.)12 The remaining exclusive legislation parcels are the “like Authority” forts, magazines, arsenals, dockyards, and other needful buildings, ceded by particular States, and accepted by Congress, now found within and under exclusive federal control. (forts) (post offices) (lighthouses) (court houses) Chapter 6: Implementation Area The Implementation Area for the Normal Situation may be understood in a simplified manner, as The Big Implementation Area—meaning the entire country. This means that the laws enacted by Congress (within members’ enumerated authority) otherwise reach every square foot of American soil (unless intentionally restricted, within any law). To simplify the geographic reach of the Abnormal Situation—the special exclusive-legislation parcels of federal land, ceded by particular States for particular uses—they may be casually referred to as The Little Implementation Areas. The Little Implementation Areas are the small enclaves of exclusive federal authority, where the particular State legislature ceded the State’s otherwise-reserved governing authority over ceded parcels of land, to Congress and the U.S. Government (and Congress accepted the cession). Whereas the Normal Situation reaches The Big Implementation Area, the Abnormal Situation directly reaches only The Little Implementation Areas. Chapter 7: Applicable Pie Charts Graphing the Source of Governing Authority in a Pie Chart shows that State Ratification of the U.S. Constitution divided allowed Governing Authority in the country, into named federal powers and reserved State authority. This division is shown below, in The Ratification Pie Chart. The Ratification Pie Chart shows that the States, when they individually ratified the U.S. Constitution, gave up a small wedge of federal authority, as enumerated in the Constitution, to Congress, the President, and the U.S. courts. With the States giving only the narrow (dark blue) wedge of governing authority to Congress, the President and the federal courts, then it necessarily follows that the States yet reserved the remainder of allowable governing powers unto themselves (as represented in the large, light yellow remainder portion of the pie).13 However, one named power of the U.S. Constitution—Article I, Section 8, Clause 17—specifically-speaks to “exclusive” legislation powers, not only in the unusual case, but “in all Cases whatsoever” (in and over the special federal areas therein allowed to be later created, by individual State cessions of land and authority). Obviously, with The Ratification Pie Chart showing a division of Governing Authority, it cannot describe an “exclusive” situation, where all governing powers are exercised by one party. Therefore, a new pie chart is needed, to chart this one peculiar source of power that was yet otherwise allowed members of Congress (after cessions by particular States)—to exercise exclusive legislation, in all cases whatsoever—in places where all governing authority gets united in Congress (rather than shared with any State). The Exclusive Legislation Pie Chart shown next, graphs the Governing Authority for The Abnormal Situation, in The Little Implementation Areas, as discussed in the Chapter 6. The Exclusive Legislation Pie Chart describes the situation where all Legislative Authority is united in Congress, without State concern. The Particular State which had once exercised State authority over a ceded parcel willingly gave up not only the ceded parcel of land, but also the State’s former governing authority over it, to Congress. With the original Source of Governing Authority appropriately charted, the next step for understanding our present federal predicament, is to take that original narrow slice of dark blue federal pie from The Ratification Pie Chart and divide it very generally into its two constituent parts. So, The Federal Action Pie Chart below takes the narrow dark blue slice of federal pie from The Ratification Pie Chart, to now show its two primary federal divisions (State action is here nonexistent). As shown in Chapter 3 earlier, 99% of the original words of the Constitution cover the Normal Situation federal powers.14 This 99% share of the words found in the Constitution covering The Normal Situation is represented below in The Federal Action Pie Chart as the huge remainder-portion of pie, in light green. From Chapter 3, remember also that 1% of the original words of the U.S. Constitution allow for the (later) creation of a special Abnormal Situation, which (1%) gets represented as the narrow dark red sliver of exceptional federal (feral?) authority. Although 1% of the original Constitution acknowledges this unique power and roughly describes its extent, it’s the later cession by a particular State which ultimately empowers Congress with State-like powers, in and over ceded and accepted parcels. So, the narrow red sliver of 1% (shell) authority gets “filled” when a particular State cedes its ability to govern a particular parcel of ground (giving up to Congress the State’s former ability to govern there [i.e., giving up its reserved yellow-remainder pie of State powers, from The Ratification Pie Chart, to Congress]). Showing now only federal action—since no State authority remains—the narrow dark blue wedge of authority from The Ratification Pie Chart gets divided in The Federal Action Pie Chart, first into its large, light green, Normal Situation authority, derived from 99% of the Constitution’s original words. And then the remaining 1% of the Constitution addresses the special federal authority, that—upon cession by particular States and acceptance by Congress—later superpowers Congress within ceded parcels (with sovereign State-like powers, generally unrestricted from other constitutional parameters and constraints). In Abnormal Situations, Congress may thus engage in State-like behavior (without yet being in a “State”), without contravening the remainder of the Constitution, including the Tenth Amendment.15 Think of the colors used here in The Federal Action Pie Chart as with traffic signals—red means “Stop” (danger) and green means “Go” (good to go). Here, in The Federal Action Pie Chart, should the “red danger power” ever improperly infect the “green good power,” red and green together make brown. The dark red slice of omnipotent federal authority is so potent, that if inappropriately mixed with the light green, everything soon turns deathly brown (think [rotting] vegetables [spreading the rot]). It’s the dose here that makes the poison—the bigger the dose of red, the quicker the green turns brown and begins to die off and spread rot. Witness then 200 years of inappropriate intermixing of exclusive powers with the Normal Situation enumerated powers, and it’s no wonder that normal federal relations with the States have rotted. But, the (State) patients are not yet dead, and may even be quickly revived, provided patriots continue marching forward, to understand what we face, so we may finally confront it, head on. Chapter 8: Relationship of Government Employees The relationship between government employees and private citizens, in the Normal Situation, is that of federal servants, serving citizens. However, the relationship between government employees and private citizens in the Abnormal Situation, is that of political masters, ruling-over and over-ruling citizen-subjects. Please realize that there isn’t even Legislative Representation in the District of Columbia, even as it’s the fundamental building block of the Union (because only “States” elect members of Congress, and the “District” isn’t a “State,” so District residents have no Legislative Representation in Congress).16 Interesting enough, in the federal seat, those persons elected by the States to be federal servants for the Union, ex officio (by virtue of that position) simultaneously become all-powerful political masters, over District matters (and that’s where the rub begins). Indeed, whereas State legislators must follow their respective State Constitutions when instituting State legislative actions, no similar State, District, or State-like Constitution exists in the District of Columbia, to govern State-like matters, within the District of Columbia (as are elsewhere-governed by the States). Thus, members of Congress must make up all their own State-like rules, in the District of Columbia, which are elsewhere guided by State Constitutions (and here, they may define words as they please). When federal servants may and must in D.C. make up their own rules, for exclusive-legislation State-like topics, without any pertinent State-like Constitution guiding and directing their State-like actions, then obviously, they are there all-powerful political masters, in those special situations. Throughout the Union, members of Congress only have their named powers that they may implement, using necessary and proper means. But in the District Seat, members of Congress and federal officials of the executive and judicial branches have discretion, to do largely as they please. Think of the Genie’s statement in Disney’s various Aladdin movies, when he speaks of “phenomenal cosmic power,” but only in an “itty-bitty living space.” Federal servants act as all-powerful beings, only within their exclusive domains. But whenever they come out of their “Genie lamp,” they must serve their true master (the States), which only gave them named powers to exercise, throughout the Union. There are therefore two opposing standards for allowable federal action, dependent upon the intended geographic area meant to be legally impacted, and these standards rely upon opposing governing principles. Which standard of action do you think scoundrels will and would invariably choose, if no one ever calls them out on their false extension, of allowed special powers, beyond legitimate boundaries? Unfortunately, patriots typically claim too far—that politicians and bureaucrats act “unconstitutionally” (i.e., that a given federal action cannot ever find constitutional support, not even by the one clause that’s only the highly-unusual exception). Obviously, by the strictest-letter of the Constitution, Article I, Section 8, Clause 17 may serve as the appropriate constitutional base for most any federal action possible—all exclusive legislation actions—it’s just that these special actions aren’t legally meant for the Union of States (instead, they’re only truly meant for exclusive legislation parcels, ceded by particular States and accepted by Congress). Chapter 9: Type of Governing Power The Type of Governing Power in the Normal Situation is based upon Legislative Representation, which is the fundamental building block of the American Union. Article IV, Section 4 of the U.S. Constitution expressly guarantees each State of the Union a Republican Form of Government, which is predicated upon the delegation of authority, by principals (the States), to their delegates and agents (Congress and federal officers). Without Legislative Representation even existing within the District of Columbia, however, there is no similar Republican Form of Government therein guaranteed. The Type of Governing Power in the Abnormal Situation in D.C. is that of tyranny and despotism, a working definition of which is that those persons who exercise governing power, are able to determine its extent.17 Federal actions legally meant for the whole Union must necessarily abide by the 99% Normal Situation, where allowable powers are specifically named. But, exclusive-legislation actions legally only meant for the 1% Abnormal Situation may reach to unspecified State-like issues, far beyond the delegated federal powers, meant for the whole country. This division ultimately explains 200 years of constitutional psychosis. To understand how an allowed special power ever began being used beyond its allowable geographic boundaries, a deeper look into the highly-unusual exception to all the normal rules is in order. This awe-inspiring power—to exercise a type of government which extends to “all Cases whatsoever”—dates back to colonial America. While the British king and Parliament long-legislated over external matters (foreign affairs) in the colonies, the American colonists guided their own internal affairs (with their own elected colonial assemblies, even as royally-selected governors administered the laws). But in 1765, Great Britain imposed the first stamp duties (taxes) in the American colonies, meant to help pay the extensive war debts, from the 1754-1763 French and Indian War. The American colonists were incensed—crying out “No Taxation without Representation” (since they hadn’t a voice in Parliament). The colonists wrote petitions and issued remonstrances, which went summarily ignored. In desperation, the colonists banded together—through Sons of Liberty groups and in other ways—and implemented “non-importation agreements,” agreeing to avoid purchasing named items, imported from Great Britain (even beyond items which carried a duty, for additional leverage). In time, colonial ports clogged with unsold items, even as the colonists suffered deprivation from doing without. Soon, British shippers and exporters began pressuring their representatives in Parliament to lift the duties, to recoup mounting losses, as imported goods sat unpurchased in the colonies. Parliament finally conceded and lifted the stamp duties. However, on the same day—March 18, 1766—King George III and Parliament also implemented their harsh and draconian “Declaratory Act.” This oppressive British Declaratory Act boldly asserted the absolute power (and Divine Right) of Great Britain to bind the American colonies and colonists “in all cases whatsoever,” declaring more fully: “That…the King's majesty, by and with the advice and consent of…parliament…had, hath, and of right ought to have, full power and authority to make laws…of sufficient force and validity to bind the colonies and people of America, subjects of the crown of Great Britain, in all cases whatsoever.”18 This 1766 British Declaratory Act planted the first seeds of absolute British dominion over the North America colonies, which colonists spent the next turbulent decade (1766-1776) seeking to revoke (the unmitigated power to “bind” them “in all cases whatsoever”). After a decade of unsuccessful diplomacy, the colonists finally made a declaration of their own, declaring themselves “Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown” and, more importantly, “Free and Independent States.” The colonists stood up as free men, willing to risk their lives, their fortunes and their sacred honor, for liberty.19 Revolting against tyranny, the newly-formed American States established government-by-consent, approving State constitutions to guide allowable State action, and in time freeing themselves. But, war-debt repayments proved lagging, and the States soon scheduled what became the Constitutional Convention of 1787. Though New York delegate Alexander Hamilton sought to implement a federal government of inherent power, the remainder of the delegates went to the opposite extreme, and proposed a federal Constitution, of but named powers, that could be implemented using only necessary and proper means. But, a relatively-obscure incident had earlier-left its indelible mark on many of the convention delegates, ultimately giving rise to the insertion of a special clause within the proposed Constitution. In June of 1783, some 70 or 80 veteran soldiers from Lancaster, Pennsylvania, marched on Congress sitting in Philadelphia under the earlier Articles of Confederation, demanding the backpay they were owed, which hadn’t yet been forthcoming. By the time the mob reached Philadelphia, it had swollen to some 400 or 500 men. While the veterans never became overtly-violent, the Confederation Congress grew concerned for their own safety and applied to the executive board of Pennsylvania, for protection. But State protection never came, perhaps because Pennsylvania’s executive council figured their militia would be drawn only from a similar group of continental ex-soldiers (who also hadn’t been paid), which would have likely thrown political fuel on a smoldering fire. The Confederation Congress ultimately fled Philadelphia (for Princeton, New Jersey), but those who experienced the humbling “mutiny” weren’t likely to forget.20 Ultimately, groundwork was laid at the convention for a unique federal city, as Article I, Section 8, Clause 17 would not only allow self-protection, but even more importantly, self-isolation (from undue influences a powerful host-State could otherwise exert). A unique federal city answered both of those important issues for the then-feeble federal government. Chapter 10: Political Circumstances The Political Circumstances involved in the Normal Situation is that of Liberty, and in the Abnormal Situation, Tyranny. Liberty stems from our God-given unalienable rights, supported by government of named powers, implemented using but necessary and proper means, by representatives of our own choosing. Tyranny stems from inherent government power, where those chosen to implement government power, may decide for themselves, as to its extent. When members of Congress restrict their inherent powers to The Little Implementation Areas, no constitutional issues readily develop (at least in the Big Implementation Area).21 However, when inherent-discretion is cleverly disguised, and meant to purposefully-invade the normal geographic boundaries of The Big Implementation Area, it increasingly-becomes arbitrary and capricious, because no one realizes what’s going on, to check it. We The People may in this case cure what we can accurately diagnose, even as it’s tough to diagnose what we don’t yet know. The war against inherent discretion and absolute despotism exercised over every square foot of American soil was fought and thankfully won over 240 years ago, when the 13 original States ended Great Britain’s open and notorious rule, where Britain had claimed the omnipotent power to bind the colonies “in all cases whatsoever.” However, that same type of inherent power—“in all Cases whatsoever”—was later specifically allowed its foot back in the door, but legitimately only for special exclusive-legislation parcels of land, where particular States had ceded the remainder of their governing authority, over to Congress and the Government of the United States, for special federal uses (and Congress accepted). It wouldn’t have made sense for the brief U.S. Constitution—which, after all, was meant to give but a few named powers for the whole country—to have included an extensive, State-like District Constitution for (D.C. and perhaps other) exclusive-legislation parcels (for what was meant only as a highly-unusual exception). So, even today, the false-extension of this allowed special power beyond allowable boundaries is never legitimate, which means adequate exposure of this devious means of constitutional bypass may permanently end its harsh rule. That which hides in the shadows cannot withstand full and open disclosure. Thankfully, until the Constitution is legally changed with so many amendments such that we no longer recognize it, we don’t need magic to change government “back” to what the Framers and Ratifiers (and those who amended the Constitution) gave us, for that legitimate government hasn’t changed in the first place (beyond the ratified amendments). We need only to expose a false magic that doesn’t exist. Chapter 11: Powers The available federal powers in the Normal Situation may be aptly described as Little Powers (even though sourced in the big light-green portion of the Federal Action Pie Chart, from Chapter 7). This name isn’t to infer that the Little Powers are inconsequential—for surely the powers over the sword and purse (war and taxation) are of great and even grave consequence—but they are herein called “Little Powers” in that they are directly-enumerated and thereby expressly-limited (to those few-in-number, named powers). The available federal powers found in the Abnormal Situation may be aptly described as Big Powers, even though they’re from the slender red slice of pie—because that narrow wedge is so potent (being supercharged with State-like authority, but without guidance or restrictions) that it authorizes most everything under the sun. To recap from Chapter 6, the applicable Implementation Area for the Normal Situation is The Big Implementation Area. And, the applicable areas for the Abnormal Situation are The Little Implementation Areas. So, only Little Powers are directly-allowed in The Big Implementation Area. Or, saying the same thing differently—the Big Powers may be legitimately-exercised, only in The Little Implementation Areas. All of Government-Gone-Wrong necessarily involves the attempted use of the special Big Powers in The Big Implementation Area—which the U.S. Constitution thankfully nowhere ever-authorizes (except for extradition), even as the Constitution currently never overtly-prohibits. Federal servants may act like political masters and decide the extent of their own authority only in the District of Columbia and “like-Authority” exclusive-legislation parcels, ceded by “particular States” and accepted by Congress, for exclusive federal use, as forts, magazines, arsenals, dockyards, and other needful buildings. Members of Congress and federal officers may directly-exercise their Big Powers only in The Little Implementation Areas, but that doesn’t stop them from indirectly casting their Big Powers over The Big Implementation Area, whenever We The People—or the States—fail to hold them accountable to their sworn oaths (because the U.S. Constitution is a lot more than only two of its clauses [Article I, Section 8, Clause 17 and Article VI, Clause 2]). So, how do federal servants indirectly-extend their allowed Big Powers into The Big Implementation Area? Stay tuned, as Section 2 is all about answering that pivotal question. But first, there’s more to cover, in Section 1. Thankfully, full exposure of extending the allowed special Big Powers indirectly throughout The Big Implementation Area will ultimately prove sufficient to end illegitimate American tyranny, because this devious means of constitutional bypass counters our founding principles which protect and secure the reserved powers of the States and the unalienable, God-given rights of We The People. Please realize that the U.S. Constitution was never meant to limit, restrict, or curtail the exclusive legislation powers of Congress operating in, on, and for exclusive legislation parcels, so it’s important to understand that Clause 17 does allow federal servants the odd ability to otherwise ignore the Constitution (so patriots who assert that federal servants may never disregard the Constitution or bypass its normal parameters are clearly wrong). So, we must never argue that federal servants may never ignore the Constitution or bypass its Normal Situation parameters, it’s just that they cannot overtly-extend that odd ability, wherever they want (i.e., into The Big Implementation Area). The false extension of allowed special powers beyond allowable boundaries stands at the very root of excessive federal action. Chapter 12: Scope of Action/Type of Authority In the Normal Situation—for The Big Implementation Area—members of Congress may only enact laws within their delegated Little Powers, using necessary and proper means. However, in their Little Implementation Areas, Congress may do anything and everything members decide, except those few things expressly-prohibited (exactly as Alexander Hamilton directly sought in 1787, everywhere). Please remember that in The Little Implementation Areas, all governing powers are united or consolidated in Congress, not shared there with any State of the Union. Only “States” are expressly guaranteed a Republican Form of Government by Article IV, Section 4 of the U.S. Constitution, and the District of Columbia was created out of cessions by particular States but is not a “State” or any longer even part of any State. Since no State exercises any governing powers in The Little Implementation Areas, members of Congress may there exercise State-like local governing powers, without violating the Constitution, including the Tenth Amendment.22 Again, the Tenth Amendment only secures to the several States, the powers they never ceded, not just those powers which remained with them when and after they ratified the U.S. Constitution. Indeed, the Tenth Amendment was never meant to restrict or prohibit the States from later-ceding more powers, under the Article V amendment process. Well, neither does the Tenth Amendment prevent any particular State, from ceding the remainder of its governing authority, under Article I, Section 8, Clause 17, over any parcels it later cedes. When a particular State cedes a particular parcel of land to Congress for a special federal use under Clause 17, the ceding State gives up all of its remaining State authority over that ceded parcel (actually, the ability to govern in the first place), except those express things it specifically-reserves in its cession document(s). In the District of Columbia, no reservations were ever made, so the Tenth Amendment there preserves nothing to any State. Everywhere that a ceding State reserved the express power to serve legal process (i.e., summons and complaint), for example, then the Tenth Amendment in those places would reserve to that State (only) that expressly-reserved power. Please realize therefore that the Abnormal Situation powers oppose the Normal Situation powers, fully, and stand at the opposite end of the political spectrum (inherent power versus named powers). The U.S. Constitution actually authorizes two opposing Forms of Government, but only for entirely-differing situations. Since Legislative Representation doesn’t exist in the District Seat, then in D.C., members may even delegate a portion of their exclusive-legislation authority to officers of the executive departments, bureaucrats of the alphabet agencies, and judges may even there “legislate from the bench” (on exclusive legislation issues) without constitutional infirmity. While Legislative Representation requirements prevent members of Congress from delegating their vested Little Powers to officers of the executive or judicial branches, without Legislative Representation existing within their exclusive legislation parameters, there’s nothing preventing members from delegating their exclusive legislation Big Powers to federal officers. Chapter 13: Means of Implementation Members of Congress may in the Normal Situation implement only their named powers, using necessary and proper means. In the Abnormal Situation, members of Congress may easily do anything and everything a “State” may elsewhere do with inherent discretion (since no “State” has any authority therein within D.C. and someone there must enact law, under our present system of governance).23 Of course, whereas an individual State Constitution will guide and direct State authority within that State, in D.C., members of Congress have a blank slate, from which they may decide, on all State-like issues which otherwise come up within the District Seat. And, of course, the Article I, Section 10 prohibitions against “States” don’t apply to the District that was created out of cessions of particular States, which cessions aren’t any longer part of a “State.” Therefore, while “States” are expressly-prohibited from doing such things as coining money, emitting bills of credit, and making things a legal tender besides gold and silver coin, these express prohibitions don’t apply to Congress when members operate in D.C., in a State-like capacity.24 And, of course, since Maryland gave up all of its governing authority over the tract of land it ceded to Congress for the District Seat in 1791, then Maryland has no more reserved powers over its ceded parcel (and no other State of the Union has any claim over it, either [since only one State ever has authority over any given area of land]). Chapter 14: Who May Enact Law Only Members of Congress may enact law under their Little Powers, in The Big Implementation Area, for the Normal Situation. Article I, Section 1 of the U.S. Constitution, after all, specifically declares that “All legislative Powers herein granted, shall be vested in a Congress of the United States…” With the Constitution expressly-fixing the named legislative powers only in Congress, members cannot delegate them elsewhere. Article I, Section 8, Clause 18 also expressly details, that: “The Congress shall have Power…To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.” So, only members of Congress may enact law in The Big Implementation Area (which are necessary and proper for carrying into execution not only the foregoing legislative powers which were expressly-vested in Congress, but even all other powers—executive and judicial—which are by the U.S. Constitution vested in the Government of the United States, not only on-down to the individual federal department, but even down to the individual federal officer). Only members of Congress may enact law (no matter whether legislative, executive or judicial, in nature or effect) in these United States of America, in The Big Implementation Area. However, in The Little Implementation Areas—without any constitutional requirement for Legislative Representation—members may freely-delegate their exclusive-legislation powers to officers of the executive and judicial branches, to help members with all that expansive special authority. Without any requirement of Legislative Representation in D.C.—or a guarantee of a Republican Form of Government—members of Congress may even evidently delegate their exclusive-legislation lawmaking ability, over to foreign diplomats of the U.N. Security Council (who by Article 43 of the 1945 U.N. Charter, may call U.S. troops into foreign action, for example).25 Only members of Congress may exercise the named legislative powers expressly-vested in them, directly throughout the Union. No executive agency bureaucrat has actually ever exercised the normal delegated Little Powers of Congress, directly throughout the whole country. No federal judge has ever “legislated from the bench” in these United States of America. All such actions are but exclusive legislation actions that are directly-allowed only for ceded parcels, under the direction or as allowed or conceded by Congress. As far as affecting the Union of States, all such exclusive legislation actions may only indirectly-affect them—beyond allowable boundaries—only because no one is correctly objecting, and bringing the correct argument to bear (“you can’t do that, here”). Chapter 15: Tenth Amendment Application The Tenth Amendment applies only in Normal Situations—it doesn’t reach to Abnormal Situations, where it can’t apply.26 Indeed, how could the Tenth Amendment apply in the District of Columbia, when the only two States which ever had any authority within the ceded parcels, expressly gave up all of their authority in December of 1791, when they ceded their respective parcels of land to Congress?27 Just because a State in the Normal Situation reserves all of its governing powers that weren’t expressly-delegated with ratification, doesn’t mean that the State cannot later give up more authority, when ratifying a new amendment, under Article V, to give Congress, the President or the courts, more powers. Well, neither did ratification of the Constitution under Article VII foreclose a State from later ceding all of its reserved powers to Congress, over particular tracts of land, for special federal purposes, under Article I (Section 8, Clause 17). Chapter 16: Where Rests the Final Governing Authority All residual and yet-allowed Governing Authority in the Normal Situation not delegated to Congress is reserved unto the States, in The Big Implementation Area. Alternatively, the States have no authority whatsoever in The Little Implementation Areas that are otherwise scattered throughout the individual States (except—beyond D.C.—the States often expressly-reserved the named power to serve legal process, during individual cessions of lands). Therefore, in The Little Implementation Areas, all allowed governing authority beyond an express reservation of named authority otherwise rests with Congress, exclusively. Again, this is exactly opposite the normal case, where only named federal powers are allowed members of Congress and federal officers, with all other allowed powers reserved to the States. Two opposing forms of government exist, in opposing places—the Republican Form of Government for the Union of States, and the Absolute Tyranny largely allowed in the District Seat and other exclusive legislation parcels ceded by particular States and accepted by Congress for special federal uses. Chapter 17: Summation The Case Against One Hundred And One-Percent Government examined, in Section 1, The Present, and Where We Are, Today. Section 1 targeted the fundamental differences between the two available Forms of Government detailed in the U.S. Constitution, to succinctly show the foundational support for the single federal problem we face today, politically. In brief, in every case of ongoing federal overreach, the latter highly-unusual exception has been deviously substituted for the former ordinary rules. The first form—discussed by 99% of the Constitution’s original words—is the Republican Form of Government meant for the whole Union.28 Everyone concentrates upon this form, 100% of the time, because that is what’s taught and it’s where we live. In a time when federal powers defy comprehension and reach to nearly every conceivable topic, though, there’s a strong case to be said for turning over every available rock, to see what’s underneath, no matter how remote the possible-benefit initially-appears. With the U.S. Constitution increasingly-irrelevant in everyday federal actions—even when it’s the supreme Law of the Land—it’s pretty easy to argue that it’s preposterous to ignore the single clause of the U.S. Constitution which not only stipulates “exclusive” legislation, “in all Cases whatsoever,” but also creates places where normal constitutional parameters meant for the whole Union simply can’t come into play. After all, within the 1% exception, the remainder of the U.S. Constitution wasn’t and isn’t meant to be relevant—the 99%-authorized Little Powers of the Constitution meant for the whole country were never meant to restrict or limit what members of Congress could do exclusively within the District Seat, where they may exercise State-like authority, without violating the Constitution. As Section 1 showed, the second source of power under the U.S. Constitution is covered by the remaining 1% of its words—apart from the 99%—Article I, Section 8, Clause 17. Sadly, though, as soon as people hear it’s for D.C., they summarily dismiss it, thinking that since they’re not in the District Seat, Clause 17 doesn’t and can’t affect them. Tragically, that’s not the case, at least ever since Secretary of the Treasury Alexander Hamilton and Chief Justice John Marshall so long ago began deviously working to shift normal lawmaking authority away from the normal case for the whole country, over to the abnormal case for special federal parcels. Remember, the 99%-authorized Little Powers are strictly-limited to the exercise of the named federal powers implemented using necessary and proper means, but the 1%-authorized Big Powers reach to most everything imaginable under the sun. With that being the case, is it really so difficult to believe that the politically-expedient man who publicly sought to institute kingly powers everywhere, wouldn’t, after open defeat, simply push the available 1%-authorized Big Powers, everywhere he could, if no one proved the wiser to stop him? It shouldn’t stretch the imagination too far, to believe that rather than superseding all of the delegated authority with magical powers never granted by the Constitution itself for the whole country, that the ingenious man who desperately sought to implement inherent power everywhere wouldn’t merely twist the yet-available 1% omnipotent Big Powers, ever-so-slightly, merely to extend them ingeniously beyond those special places’ true geographic borders. Tragically, the continued misuse of an allowed special authority today only takes doing what’s been done in the past, without even understanding how it all works. Proponents only need to cite charmed powers and then create outlandish and incoherent statements to create sufficient confusion to cover any telltale tracks. While Section 1 of The Case Against One Hundred And One-Percent Government was all about understanding the vast differences between the two opposing forms of government, Section 2—The Past, and How We Got Here, Yesterday—will cover the devious means Secretary of the Treasury Alexander Hamilton and Chief Justice John Marshall used, in the words of Grok AI, to make the exception “swallow the rule,” or, how they were able to “Shift Authority From the Constitution’s Fixed Text to Lawmakers’ Whims.”29 While Section 1 taught what we face, Section 2 is meant to show how we got here. Sections 1 and 2 are meant to be quick one-two jabs, so Section 3 may help deliver the knockout final blow, as it will show the path forward to permanently end the bizarre legal fiction that infers political tyranny may directly extend throughout the whole county which was founded upon securing the unalienable rights of a free people. Section 2: The Past, and How We Got Here, Yesterday Shifted Authority: From Fixed Text to Lawmakers’ Whims How Secretary of the Treasury Alexander Hamilton and Chief Justice John Marshall Subverted Our Country’s Founding Principles Introduction to Section 2 After Section 1, the big question remains—how were the special Big Powers ever indirectly-extended throughout The Big Implementation Area, which the U.S. Constitution nowhere directly-authorizes (even as it yet nowhere [currently] expressly-prohibits)? The answer is by lies and deception, which will be covered here in Section 2: The Past, and How We Got Here, Yesterday. Remember from Chapter 4, that Article VI, Clause 2 expressly-declares: “This Constitution”—and “the Laws which shall be made in Pursuance thereof”—shall be the “supreme Law of the Land” that bind the States through their judges? Well, Secretary of the Treasury Alexander Hamilton—in his 1791 opinion on the constitutionality of the bank of the United States—and Chief Justice John Marshall—in 1803 Marbury v. Madison, 1819 McCulloch v. Maryland, and especially 1821 Cohens v. Virginia—indirectly or minimally point out that even Article I, Section 8, Clause 17 is *part* of “This Constitution.” Given that undeniable truth, and also the fact that nowhere does the Constitution directly-exempt Clause 17 from this supreme Law of the Land holding, then even Article I, Section 8, Clause 17 can bind the States (but really only when specific requirements align). Please realize that Article VI never expressly-declares, for example, that “This Constitution—except the seventeenth clause of the eighth section of the first article—shall be the supreme Law of the Land.” With no express exception ever listed in the U.S. Constitution, designing men simply acknowledge that Clause 17 can bind the States (but only in special circumstances and in unusual instances). But, if no one ever properly-challenges the false-extension of allowed special powers beyond legitimate geographic-boundaries, then the exclusive-legislation powers may end up running roughshod over the States and everyone in them, illegitimately. Welcome to Laissez Faire Government, where what you don’t know, can and will be used against you! Federal servants have no express duty or obligation to point out that Clause 17 binds the States and We The People only in highly-unusual circumstances—they merely hold on for dear life to the unquestioned fact that it’s possible. Please note that about the only two legitimate cases where Article I, Section 8, Clause 17 may again actually bind the States would deal with extradition and return of escaped federal prisoners (who, as suspects or prisoners, originally broke exclusive-legislation laws on exclusive-legislation grounds, and then fled or escaped into nearby or distant States). So, in other cases, when Defendants cry out that X, Y or Z federal actions are “unconstitutional”—for supposedly-violating the reserved powers of the States under the Tenth Amendment—then courts will find Defendants in error and rule against them (because they made legal claims too far, by ignoring the unusual exception to all the normal rules of the Constitution—Article I, Section 8, Clause 17). One cannot ignore the most powerful clause of the Constitution, bar none, and still expect to win precise legal arguments which ultimately rely on it (even if Defendants don’t realize that firm reliance). Remember, the highly-unusual exception to all the normal rules of the Constitution is yet itself one of the named rules, that is found within the originally-ratified Constitution, as the seventeenth clause of the eighth section of its first article. Failing to acknowledge the exceptional rule means patriots will invariably (but falsely) make claims-too-far (that federal powers never extend to X, Y or Z federal actions). In such cases, Defendants who assert sloppy and imprecise legal statements are constitutionally wrong, meaning they will lose. So, instead, We The People must learn to be precise and accurate in all of our legal claims, to properly regain our freedom and Restore Our American Republic. While informed patriots likely already realize that Alexander Hamilton and John Marshall weren’t exactly on the right side of the liberty equation, many don’t realize just how “strategically manipulative” were both devious and conniving men.30 Hamilton was the architect, Marshall the builder. Hamilton designed the system and laid the first cornerstone, Marshall built up the vile legal edifice we now face, only growing larger over time. As briefly covered in Chapter 4 above and as expounded upon more fully in Chapter 18 below, Alexander Hamilton tried to directly institute his preferred system of omnipotent federal powers at the 1787 Constitutional Convention, but there resolutely failed. Since Hamilton’s open and direct route failed miserably, that necessarily meant that if he still wanted to achieve his primary goals, going forward he would need to act in a hidden and indirect manner—which is exactly what he did. And, as others followed in Hamilton’s footsteps—especially after Vice President Aaron Burr killed Hamilton in a duel in 1804—they would all need to follow Hamilton’s prescribed path, for it’s the only one which offers success. After all, there is only one route available to exercise inherent powers in the U. S., because only one clause of the Constitution offers it, despite thousands of Supreme Court inferences otherwise. Upon this simple truth rests all the lies which have steered these United States of America far from their rightful path. Hamilton’s virulent path merely exploits Clause 17 for all it’s worth, to exercise an allowed special authority, illegitimately far beyond that authority’s legitimate geographic boundaries. Corruption thrives only in the darkest of shadows, while full exposure efficiently eradicates it. This truth exposes Hamilton’s Achilles Heel—we may cure what we can accurately diagnose—because the deceit we face can’t change anything, even as it initially appears invincible. But, it’s also tough to kill non-existent phantoms. When Hamilton lost the direct route to establish an omnipotent federal government at the 1787 Convention, only an indirect route remained. But, it exists only as long as it’s kept quiet, because the gate which bars its ill use wasn’t locked, but may yet get locked. Indeed, liberty-minded patriots may end Hamilton’s devious Constitution-bypass mechanism, almost overnight (figuratively speaking), if they simply lock the gate, by proposing and then ratifying a new amendment which would simply prohibit Article I, Section 8, Clause 17 from ever being considered any a part of the supreme Law of the Land, under Article VI, Clause 2.31 But, thankfully we don’t necessarily even need to lock the gate with a formal amendment—instead we may post sentries there—literally overnight—to figuratively keep the “wild stallions” from getting out beyond their “corral” that can’t exceed ten miles square. The Case Against One Hundred And One-Percent Government is sufficient to end two centuries of escalating federal tyranny, that rests squarely upon Hamilton’s Government-By-Deception-Through-Redefinition scheme. Only widespread understanding is needed. The political quagmire built from Hamilton’s master plan—from the first and second banks of the United States, Civil War-era legal tender paper currency and national banking associations to the 1913 Federal Reserve, from the Civil War to the undeclared wars of Korea, Viet Nam, Iraq, Afghanistan and all the minor skirmishes never declared by Congress, from the alphabet agency bureaucrats creating regulations held as federal mandates on health, education and a vast multitude of other issues otherwise reserved to the States, to apparent Tenth Amendment violations allowed to continue, they all necessarily grew from the twisted roots of Article I, Section 8, Clause 17.32 There is nothing beyond the spirit of the Constitution, that doesn’t rest upon this same Constitution bypass system and false-extension mechanism, because it’s the only available means to those who want to exercise inherent discretion and ignore normal constitutional parameters with impunity. That Hamilton and Marshall buffaloed a young Constitutional Republic into believing that federal servants who swore a binding oath to support the Constitution could nevertheless ignore or bypass their normal constitutional powers without repercussion, everywhere, defies comprehension. Yes, we can say “shame on Hamilton and Marshall,” but not without accepting much or even most of the blame and guilt ourselves. Just as we all assume the primary responsibility of protecting ourselves and our loved ones from physical force and fraud, we also all have the duty to protect ourselves from legal treachery, including betrayal by opportunistic federal servants who swear a binding oath so they may exercise delegated federal powers that were instituted to secure the blessings of liberty sought through the exercise of our unalienable rights. The information within this short book has for 200 years been largely available for anyone and everyone to piece together, to permanently get our country back on its proper track. With it put together now in one concise book, we only have to pay attention and pass along our findings to anyone and everyone who’ll listen. Preach first and foremost to the choir, those most receptive to our efforts. Don’t waste time and precious resources on those who oppose us. While we can’t erase our treacherous past, we most certainly may direct our bright future. So, please continue reading Sections 2 and 3 to get adequately informed, and then tell others. Spread the word, and help Restore Our American Republic, Once and For All, or maybe even Happily-Ever-After. Chapter 18. The Constitutional Convention of 1787. Alexander Hamilton—one of three delegates chosen from New York to attend the 1787 Constitutional Convention—spoke at length on June 18th about his totalitarian-minded central government.33 The first pillar Hamilton sought, to build his all-powerful command and control government, was to overtly give members of Congress inherent powers—able to do anything their hearts desired, except as his constitution would expressly prohibit, as he proposed: “The Supreme Legislative power…to be vested…with power to pass all laws whatsoever subject to the Negative hereafter mentioned.”34 In other words, Hamilton would have simply given members of Congress inherent discretion, but then through his constitution offered a set of negative prohibitions, saying “Congress shall not do this or that.” Hamilton’s primary proposal defaulted to Anything-Goes Government, (anything permitted) except as explicitly denied. Second, Hamilton wanted to abolish the States, or at most leave them as mere geopolitical subdivisions of the national domain. Hamilton preferred outright abolition of State governments, going so far as saying that if “they were extinguished,” the general government would see great economic savings.35 He only backed away from his preference because he “did not mean…to shock the public opinion by proposing such a measure,” though he yet even tempered that minimal retreat by openly admitting that he didn’t see any “other necessity for declining” his preference.36 Alexander Hamilton was a brilliant man who performed spectacularly during the Revolutionary War, where he quickly earned the favor of General George Washington. But by the 1787 Convention, Hamilton revealed a clear penchant for power, essentially calling for establishment of an American king, who would serve for life. Indeed, Hamilton at the Convention openly proclaimed “As to the Executive, it seemed to be admitted that no good one could be established on Republican principles,” and openly asserted that the English model for their executive (king) “was the only good one on this subject,” before boldly declaring that the British government was not only “the best in the world” but “doubted much whether any thing short of it would do in America.”37 Alexander Hamilton also desired a Senate with “a permanent will.” His third pillar thus sought life terms for both American Presidents and U.S. Senators, or at least allow them to reign during their good behavior, as he wrote: “Let one branch of the Legislature hold their places for life or at least during good behaviour. Let the Executive also be for life.”38 Thankfully, the remainder of convention delegates wanted (and had) nothing to do with Hamilton’s North American Kingdom—in fact, they worked for its polar opposite, ultimately drafting a Republican Form of Government of but named federal powers, that could be implemented using only necessary and proper means. While on the surface it would appear that Hamilton didn’t get anything he wanted, it turned out he yet got everything he needed. Chapter 19. The Bank of the United States Although Alexander Hamilton directly sought inherent legislative powers for the whole country at the 1787 Constitutional Convention, he overtly failed to attain that grand prize. While Hamilton sought inherent discretion everywhere, the States abolished, and life terms for Presidents and Senators, he nonetheless got his two most important goals, for the District Seat. 39 And from that special base—where members of Congress and federal officials could at their whim do as they pleased and where the States had no say whatsoever—Hamilton and his followers proved it entirely sufficient over the next two centuries, to bring us to today. Hamilton only needed to pry open the door slowly, so no one would realize that he merely exploited the place where he had carefully placed his totalitarian-minded foot. For good measure, he carefully covered his tracks which emanated from that special place, with convoluted treatises meant to confuse, rather than clarify. As Secretary of the Treasury under his loyal friend President George Washington, Alexander Hamilton began making lemonade out of the lemons the remainder of convention delegates thought they gave him. In 1791, President Washington commanded Secretary of State Thomas Jefferson, Attorney General Edmund Randolph, and Secretary of the Treasury Alexander Hamilton, to give him their written opinions on a pending bank bill that made it to his desk.40 Responding first, Jefferson and Randolph both replied that the proposed banking bill was “unconstitutional,” since it wasn’t a necessary and proper means to an enumerated end.41 Unfortunately, Jefferson and Randolph made the same fundamental error which all later conservatives would also make, by claiming too far—asserting that the banking proposal was “unconstitutional”— that not a single delineated power could support the action. But, how can anyone ever look only at 99% of the Constitution and then claim that none of the Constitution could ever authorize what was being proposed? What about the other 1%—especially when that other 1% reached nearly everything under the sun? That the remaining 1% was only meant for the District Seat (and other exclusive legislation parcels) isn’t a sufficient reason to ignore it altogether, not when power-seeking deviants will do nearly anything to exercise this unfathomable and incomprehensible power. We The People can’t lackadaisically continue to ignore what is the most logical and consistent explanation out there. Neither Jefferson nor Randolph—nor anyone since—ever narrowed their argument sufficiently, and simply said “you can’t do that, here”—you can’t directly extend an allowed special power, everywhere. Of course, no one can do that—not even Hamilton then nor anyone today, directly—but that hasn’t stopped all the miscreants then or since from extending that allowed special power, indirectly. The outcome of narrowing the legal claim—to “you can’t do that (as applied), here”—would prove successful when consistently argued and openly defended. After all, it’s diametrically opposed to continuing to argue the same old song and dance, falsely asserting that no clause in the Constitution could ever allow all these questionable practices (somewhere). The tired refrain has led us to where we are, today. With the two opposition letters in his hand, Hamilton first conceded to Randolph’s point, “that the power of incorporation is not expressly given to Congress.”42 Additionally, Hamilton affirmed “that the power of erecting a corporation is not included in any of the enumerated powers.”43 Now in a government of named powers that may be implemented using only necessary and proper means, it would be difficult to make such concessions yet still oppose the point, but Hamilton rose to the occasion. After all, he wasn’t going to use the normal Little Powers to support his cause, like Jefferson and Randolph had used to deny it. Instead, Hamilton would use the special Big Powers, which reached everything under the sun, but those few matters expressly prohibited. It’s no coincidence that in his lengthy treatise, banking advocate Alexander Hamilton pointedly referenced the allowed special Big Powers of Congress in the Abnormal Situation, when he wrote: “Surely it can never be believed that Congress with exclusive powers of legislation in all cases whatsoever, cannot erect a corporation within the district which shall become the seat of government...And yet there is an unqualified denial of the power to erect corporations in every case on the part both of the Secretary of State and of the Attorney General.”44 Jefferson and Randolph gave blanket denials—never conceding to an exception—arguing the proposal was (facially) “unconstitutional.” Neither learned man ever allowed for the possibility that Article I, Section 8, Clause 17 could allow Congress to charter a bank. Yet Clause 17 was one of the express clauses of the Constitution. By never appropriately qualifying their responses—Jefferson and Randolph instead asserted a blanket denial of the power—Hamilton was thus able to prove them wrong. Jefferson and Randolph erred, because they both proclaimed that the federal government could never do as proposed—charter a corporation, in this case—instead of narrowing their argument to “you can’t do that, here”—that, in this case, the bank couldn’t be chartered where proponents sought ([in Philadelphia] outside exclusive legislation areas). Yet, Jefferson and Randolph couldn’t necessarily be blamed for missing that first implementation of the exclusive legislation powers of Congress, since no District Seat had even yet been created by that early date. It would, after all, be another 10 months before Maryland and Virginia would even formally cede their parcels for D.C. and the District wouldn’t even be built up and operational until the year 1800, nine years later. Hamilton’s next quote showed him to be even more brazen than anyone could imagine, but he needed his pivotal bank chartered, as it was central to his plans. Expounding upon the omnipotent powers available to Congress for the District Seat, he wrote: "Here then is express power to exercise exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever over certain places, that is, to do in respect to those places all that any government whatsoever may do; For language does not afford a more complete designation of sovereign power than in those comprehensive terms.”45 Again, Jefferson and Randolph couldn’t here be blamed for missing what Hamilton was doing at this early point in time. After all, who at that time could have guessed that Hamilton would seek to use this special power beyond the directly-impacted “places” he had just acknowledged were directly-affected? Incredibly, he even sought to use the omnipotent power of those places, even before they were ceded and accepted, and then beyond their true boundaries. Hamilton’s twisted genius was perhaps simply too much for honest men, even those learned men of great renown. Of course, missing its first notorious use was one thing, but as Chief Justice John Marshall expounded upon Hamilton’s tactics first within 1803 Marbury v. Madison, then more blatantly in 1819 McCulloch v. Madison, and then brashly in 1821 Cohens v. Virginia—it should have been growing increasingly-obvious. After 1821 Cohens was written and publicized, it is astounding that none of the Founders, Framers, and Ratifiers, or those of the next generation realized what was going on, behind the curtain. If Jefferson or any of his followers had discovered what Marshall was really doing at least with 1821 Cohens, they could have forced the issue just like the States had responded to 1793 Chisholm v. Georgia.46 A corrective amendment at that time would have steered the Republic back on its proper path, before any lasting damage was done, transforming all of American history as we know it, today. While Chisholm uncorrected wouldn’t have been one-thousandth as damaging to the Republic as 1821 Cohens—in 1795 (where and when the States actually realized what they faced), the States quickly ratified the Eleventh Amendment, overturning Chisholm. Tragically, that correction never came in 1821, but thankfully, it’s never too late to do the right thing. So, let’s dig further, now. Alexander Hamilton in 1791 accurately described the extent of the exclusive legislative powers of Congress—which reached to the comprehensive power of being able to “do in respect to those places all that any government whatsoever may do” because “language does not afford a more complete designation of sovereign power than in those comprehensive terms.” Hamilton’s words convey not just how extensive are the exclusive legislation powers of Congress, but give clear notice why designing men such as he would strive to use that incredible power at every available turn. While Hamilton wanted that comprehensive power directly available everywhere in 1787, he nevertheless got it for the District Seat. And only four years later, in 1791, he began his personal quest to extend the District’s inherent powers nationwide, even as he admitted his plan’s true weakness—that these omnipotent powers are directly available only “over certain places.” Only “in respect to those places” may government do “all that any government whatsoever may do.” So, his 1791 game plan consisted of deviously seeking to extend that special power indirectly beyond those places, even though it could never withstand full and open exposure or direct rebuttal. He’d never win, if he ever got caught, but he’d succeed, until he got caught. His convoluted justifications on federal overreach shouldn’t then surprise anyone—considering his vocalized aspirations and his true weakness. Please realize that the exercise of legitimate federal power doesn’t need any games to cover its tracks. The contortions supporting Government-Gone-Wrong provide a fair degree of evidence all on their own, that something is amiss and must be kept well-hidden. The longer Hamilton’s Constitution-bypass mechanism worked, the more convoluted the trail became and the weaker the scent turned. Yet with big precedent shifts, it should have become increasingly evident as to what was going on, if anyone really cared to figure it out (undoubtedly many immoral people operate within the system to their decided advantage). Given that almost anything-goes under the exclusive legislation powers of Congress for the District Seat, one can perhaps understand how Chief Justice John Marshall could later declare that Defendants operating under it needed to prove that the action being challenged didn’t reach the power in question, so extensive was its power. Although Hamilton touched on a myriad of different topics in his 1791 banking opinion—to throw people off his scent—it was no coincidence he returned to the exclusive powers of Congress. In fact, the emboldened Hamilton went so far as to proclaim his new standard of allowable federal action—accurately summed up as: Everything not expressly prohibited, is allowed. His measured words, of course, were a bit more nuanced: “If the end be clearly comprehended within any of the specified powers, and if the measure have an obvious relation to that end, and is not forbidden by any particular provision of the Constitution, it may safely be deemed to come within the compass of the national authority.”47 In his 1791 Treasury Secretary’s opinion on the banking bill, Hamilton effectively argued that the standard for allowable federal action under the Constitution (which really only reach the named powers implemented using necessary and proper means) were instead the same totalitarian-styled means he had openly sought at the 1787 Convention, but yet there wholly failed to secure. So, how could Hamilton boldly write his absurd claim in 1791, only three short years after he had conceded defeat? Indeed, one would think his 1788 words in The Federalist, #84 were truly his immortalized concession speech, when he pseudonymously wrote—regarding the absence of a bill of rights in the original proposal, as the Constitution lay pending before the States in 1788: “Here, in strictness, the people surrender nothing, and as they retain every thing, they have no need of particular reservations…I go further, and affirm that bills of rights, in the sense and in the extent in which they are contended for, are not only unnecessary in the proposed constitution, but would even be dangerous. They would contain various exceptions to powers which are not granted; and on this very account, would afford a colourable pretext to claim more than were granted. For why declare that things shall not be done which there is no power to do?...it is evident that it would furnish, to men disposed to usurp, a plausible pretence for claiming that power. They might urge with a semblance of reason, that the constitution ought not to be charged with the absurdity of providing against the abuse of an authority, which was not given...”48 Hamilton’s reasoning and logic here in 1788 were impeccable—so how could any man turn 180 degrees just three years later? The short answer is because the man knew no shame, but the longer answer is that in each case—in his 1788 paper supporting our Republic and his 1791 bank opinion undermining it—Hamilton did offer up the applicable standard, only for two opposing forms of government, each with its own standard of allowable action. His 1788 standard, was the fixed, legitimate standard for 99% Normal Situation, Little Powers of Congress, for the whole country. His 1791 “standard” was but the hyper-flexible benchmark legitimate only for the 1% Abnormal Situation, Big Powers for The Little Implementation Areas, even as he implied it was for the whole Union. Hamilton could deceive truthfully, talking out of both sides of his mouth, simply by talking out of one side at one time, and the other side, at another time, without ever revealing which power he was referring to, when. After all, may anyone ever actually charge and convict the man for failing his oath to support the Constitution, when Article I, Section 8, Clause 17 is yet a *part* of that same Constitution? Yes, oaths are binding, but to enforce them as we would like, first we have to make actions under them openly consistent, so they may be strictly enforced. And that is precisely how Hamilton’s followers could avoid actually violating their oath, by being ultra-general when it suited their needs, only to be ultra-specific the next moment, as the needs changed. While patriots would see bizarre, incomprehensible, back-and-forth, ping-pong type of schizophrenic behavior, in reality they only witnessed their opponents alternating between the two available forms of government at their disposal, at any given point in time. Hamilton didn’t actually seek to charter his bank under the 99% Normal Situation, Little Powers, because—as Jefferson and Randolph had correctly asserted—those powers couldn’t reach that result. Instead, Hamilton ingeniously called upon the exclusive legislation Big Powers nominally available under the 1% Abnormal Situation, to support his favored banking bill. That the District Seat hadn’t even yet been ceded or accepted and operational didn’t evidently matter, if no one ever directly called him out on misusing special powers. The originally-ratified U.S. Constitution never provides blanket prohibitions to powers never granted, for that would support the idea of inherent federal powers which the Framers beyond Hamilton never intended, and to which the Ratifiers certainly would have objected. While some patriots may challenge that claim, by pointing to the Article I, Section 9 restrictions on federal powers and therefore argue that the Constitution does list express prohibitions, please realize that those restrictions merely limit the extent of some of the Article I, Section 8 powers which had just been beforehand delegated. The Section 9 restrictions keep some of the Section 8 powers from reaching as far as they otherwise would, had the added wording not been included—so Section 9 doesn’t actually prohibit powers never granted, but instead limits some of the powers that were granted. Not until the Bill of Rights were ratified in 1791 did the Constitution ever list express prohibitions to powers never granted (such as the First Amendment in its words: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion…”). So fearful and protective were the States of omnipotent federal powers, that they later took the unusual and overt step of prohibiting named federal actions even where members of Congress weren’t ever given the power. While it could be argued that ratification of the Bill of Rights muddled the principled waters to some extent, no one today in the liberty-minded camp would seek to overturn these ten amendments. The only bad part of their presence today is that they induce a great many patriots to believe that it’s appropriate to extend that list of prohibitions dramatically. Please realize that this approach is precisely what Hamilton had first argued for in 1787—to concede inherent discretion and unlimited powers to Congress, and then create a constitution which would contain a list of named powers which members couldn’t reach. But, it’s never proper to first concede inherent powers and then offer up a list of named prohibitions—we’d never keep up. Instead, we must finally learn from our past mistakes, grab ahold of the correct legal principles—where only named powers may be exercised and everything else, prohibited. Without the originally-ratified U.S. Constitution ever overtly prohibiting powers never granted—only limiting some of the enumerated powers so they wouldn’t reach as far as the words used would otherwise allow—the amendment we actually “need” is to limit yet another of the named powers, which in this peculiar case does reach to the exercise of inherent powers. See Chapter 25 for details, for an Article I, Section 9-like restrictive amendment, to contain in this case, Article I, Section 8, Clause 17 exclusive legislation powers, to exclusive legislation parcels. For now, please realize that Hamilton’s 1791 “Allowable Means Test” necessarily and directly applies only in and for The Little Implementation Areas, where Big Powers are allowed, even as he left out that critical admission. Chapter 20. 1803 Marbury v. Madison Chief Justice John Marshall in 1803 Marbury v. Madison infamously proclaimed that the Supreme Court had the unique ability “to say what the law is”—nominally establishing Judicial Review—the Supreme Court’s self-proclaimed power of being the final arbiter on the Constitution, able to overturn congressional Acts. But, this ability to support the Constitution and hold anything contrary to it as null and void isn’t a named power or special prerogative of the courts, but instead it’s the direct duty of every person who has taken a sworn oath to support the Constitution. If anything were to violate the Constitution or supersede its delegated powers, how could any federal servant who individually swore that oath—which is all of them—ever knowingly carry out unauthorized or disallowed directives (except by having a Machiavellian nature)? And regarding the proclaimed ability “to say what the law is,” please realize that this 1803 court case was given eight years after the States ratified the Eleventh Amendment in 1795, which overturned the 1793 Supreme Court case of Chisholm v. Georgia. Obviously, when the States ratified the Eleventh Amendment telling how certain judicial matters were to be thereafter “construed,” the States overruled the U.S. Supreme Court which had just held differently. The Eleventh Amendment clearly opposes the Court’s later claim then, that the justices have the peculiar power to “say what the law is,” but instead verifies that the States do. Recall, however, that in the District Seat, the States themselves have no say whatsoever. Obviously, in the District of Columbia, things are entirely different—a whole new ball game. Thus, it’s entirely possible that in D.C., the Court may perhaps have the final say on “what the law is.” When members of Congress may do anything and everything in the District Seat except what’s expressly prohibited, perhaps it’s even wise for the Supreme Court to have the final say there, to serve as an appropriate legal check, on the absolute powers of Congress in D.C. Of course, with the Constitution in Article I, Section 8, Clause 17 naming members of Congress as having the exclusive legislation powers for the District Seat, then members ultimately have the final say there, but first they have to agree with one another. But, with so many members—435 Representatives and 100 Senators—it’s certainly easier for nine Supreme Court justices to come to majority agreement on a thousand different issues. It’s easiest, however, for one President to agree with himself. And if he makes command decisions easily, then he may now direct tens and hundreds of thousands and even millions of bureaucrats in the federal departments, independent agencies and government corporations, to carry out his directives. Thus, in Anything-Goes Government, there’s an incessant shift of omnipotent federal powers from Congress to the Court, and ultimately to a single President, at least when he’s decisive. Again, in The Big Implementation Area, the States themselves serve as the appropriate legal check on federal tyranny, as they hold their reserved powers, individually, while holding members of Congress to the exercise of their delegated powers, implemented using necessary and proper means, creating great stability without the wild swings due to election results or federal appointments. But back to 1803 Marbury v. Madison. If it’s not the single most directly-cited and widely-referenced federal court case in existence, it’s only because some later-cited case—which itself undoubtedly rests on Marbury—stands in-between. Upon Marbury ultimately rests all of Government-Gone-Wrong. Before getting deeper into the Marbury case, it’s important to look first at the actions which served at its base. When the Electoral votes for President were counted on December 16, 1800, Federalist incumbent John Adams lost his re-election bid.49 In response, the Federalist majority in Congress began furiously working behind the scenes to write legislation to secure their influence after the Federalist Party would soon fall into oblivion. After Chief Justice Oliver Ellsworth resigned his position December 15, 1800, Adams sought to replace him before leaving office. President Adams nominated his Secretary of State, John Marshall, as Chief Justice, on January 27, 1801. The Senate quickly confirmed Marshall and he was sworn into office on February 4, 1801, even though he interestingly stayed on as acting Secretary, evidently because he had more yet to do while yet in that pivotal position. 50 President Adams signed into law the Federalists’ new Judiciary Act of February 13th, 1801, which created not only 16 new circuit court positions, but also upon the next vacancy, dropped one Supreme Court justice—to keep the new President from as easily appointing a new conservative justice (if he failed to get help from Congress).51 Adams nominated 16 new Federalist judges and the Federalist Senate quickly confirmed them, and they all took their new positions swiftly. Then, just two weeks later, on February 27th, President Adams signed into law the Organic Act for the District of Columbia that the Federalist Congress had also placed upon his desk. Adams quickly nominated 23 Federalist Justices of the Peace for Washington County and 19 for Alexandria County. The Senate again quickly confirmed these local justices, to secure in D.C., a prolonged Federalist influence, long after the party became extinct. President Adams signed the judicial commissions and his acting Secretary of State—still John Marshall, himself—affixed his secretarial seal for these Midnight Judges, whose commissions were sealed near midnight, of Adams’ last day of office. John Marshall charged his brother, James, to deliver the commissions (or not to deliver them—as the case may or perhaps may not be). James Marshall delivered all of the commissions to the Alexandria County Justices, but none to the Washington County Justices (where most all of the federal offices were actually located). Thomas Jefferson took office the next day, March 4, at noon. When the Jefferson Administration found the undelivered commissions, President Jefferson ordered his Secretary of State, James Madison, to deliver only those commissions Jefferson approved of, but to withhold delivery to the 11 men he didn’t. Ten of those men quietly went away, but the 11th—William Marbury—sued Madison in federal court to get his commission. When the matter came before the Supreme Court, John Marshall, once Secretary of State, but now Chief Justice, came to rule over the case where he was least a material participant, if not the ringleader. Marshall refused to recuse himself, even with his obvious conflict. The judicial commissions his brother James never delivered set up the whole case which John Marshall would use to extend federal judicial authority far past its original constraints, as Marshall firmly placed Hamilton’s loophole into official court lore. Marshall seized the opportunity presented and established Judicial Review. He implied, of course, that his new standard was for the whole Union, rather than merely for the District Seat. Marbury v. Madison makes sense only when one realizes that the commission was for Justice of the Peace in the District of Columbia and Marbury’s claim rested on the District’s 1801 Organic Act! One may easily confirm that the Court examined Marbury’s claim under the 1801 D.C. Organic Act, because Marshall himself declares it, not only by referencing the Act’s name, but also even quoting the express words (of Section 11) which gave Marbury his claim, within the first 300 words of Marshall’s written opinion, where he wrote: “The first object of inquiry is: “1. Has the applicant a right to the commission he demands? “His right originates in an act of Congress passed in February, 1801, concerning the District of Columbia. “After dividing the district into two counties, the eleventh section of this law enacts, "‘that there shall be appointed in and for each of the said counties such number of discreet persons to be justices of the peace as the President of the United States shall, from time to time, think expedient, to continue in office for five years’."52 A comparison of Section 11 of the February 13, 1801 Judiciary Act and the February 27, 1801 Organic Act easily proves the quoted words are only found in the latter D.C. Organic Act. Again, who says that Judicial Review—and the Supreme Court’s self-proclaimed power “to say what the law is”— isn’t appropriate under the inherent discretion for the District Seat? But, what the Supreme Court ruled in Marbury—for a Justice of the Peace for the District of Columbia under its Organic Act—hardly holds true for the Republic, under the remainder of the Constitution. Remember, no State has any authority whatsoever, to determine what’s allowed in D.C., so someone other than the States must there necessarily have the final word, regarding “what the law is.” All of the States, in ratifying the U.S. Constitution, all bought off on a unique federal city, where members of Congress and by them perhaps federal officers of the executive and judicial branches could, amongst themselves, decide what is and isn’t allowed, with extensive discretion (as federal servants otherwise became political masters, there). So, while the States have and had the last word, on the meaning of the whole Constitution in all Normal Situation cases and in The Big Implementation Area (on the exercise of the Little Powers)—as the Tenth and Eleventh Amendments clearly prove—Congress, the President, and the Courts may battle amongst themselves in the Anything-Goes Government allowed in D.C., where members of Congress may exercise “exclusive” legislation “in all Cases whatsoever.” Apart from oaths, Judicial Review isn’t relevant in the United States, in the Normal Situation, and the Supreme Court doesn’t have the final say in The Big Implementation Area, “to say what the law is.” All of Marshall’s other comments in Marbury are but irrelevant side-show distractions, meant to throw everyone off track as to his underlying actions, to falsely position the Court as the final arbiter of all things constitutional. What the 1789 or 1801 Judiciary Acts said or didn’t say, did or didn’t do, reach or didn’t reach, were ultimately but insignificant covers for his primary purpose, of being able to write that the Court could “say what the law is” and proclaim the express power of Judicial Review. Chapter 21. 1819 McCulloch v. Maryland Before delving into 1819 McCulloch v. Maryland—which looks at the constitutionality of the 1816 second bank of the United States—it’s appropriate to look again for a moment at Hamilton's 1791 opinion on the constitutionality of the first bank of the United States (since Marshall followed the Treasury Secretary’s earlier lead). Remember from Chapter 19, that Hamilton offered his standard for determining allowable federal action (but really, only for the District Seat), when he wrote: “If the end be clearly comprehended within any of the specified powers, and if the measure have an obvious relation to that end, and is not forbidden by any particular provision of the Constitution, it may safely be deemed to come within the compass of the national authority."53 Hamilton’s standard of Anything-Goes Government is allowable only under the exclusive legislation powers of Congress—which was the express power he ultimately resorted to, to support his bank. Indeed, Article I, Section 8, Clause 18 is very clear as to the actual standard for the whole Union—using but “necessary and proper” means to enumerated ends. Like Hamilton, Marshall went into an extensive discussion, attempting to muddle everything together, so no one could easily follow what he was really doing. Marshall droned on, regarding how “necessary and proper” doesn’t mean " absolute physical necessity” and also brought up that “A thing may be necessary, very necessary, absolutely or indispensably necessary.”54 Since only one clause of the Constitution allows inherent discretion, it isn’t surprising that the Chief Justice’s standard of allowable federal action (for the District Seat) was almost identical to the words the Secretary of the Treasury had used 28 years earlier. In 1819 McCulloch v. Maryland, Chief Justice John Marshall famously wrote: "Let the end be legitimate, let it be within the scope of the constitution, and all means which are appropriate, which are plainly adapted to that end, which are not prohibited, but consist with the letter and spirit of the constitution, are constitutional.”55 Marshall’s words here were almost verbatim Hamilton’s. In his lengthy diatribe to cover his tracks, you’ll yet find Marshall’s peculiar discussion: “So, with respect to the whole penal code of the United States, whence arises the power to punish in cases not prescribed by the Constitution? All admit that the Government may legitimately punish any violation of its laws, and yet this is not among the enumerated powers of Congress. The right to enforce the observance of law by punishing its infraction might be denied with the more plausibility because it is expressly given in some cases. “Congress is empowered ‘to provide for the punishment of counterfeiting the securities and current coin of the United States,’ and ‘to define and punish piracies and felonies committed on the high seas, and offences against the law of nations’.”56 Since Marshall brought up the federal penal code, let’s go to it now. In the April 30, 1790 crime Act, the sections which touched on treason, counterfeiting and piracy may be safely ignored—since the federal jurisdiction for those named crimes are expressly-mentioned in the Constitution itself (and thus their 1790 mention, appropriate). We see other federal crimes listed, though, too, in the 1790 Act—such as found in Section 16, which reads, in part: “That if any person within any of the places under the sole and exclusive jurisdiction of the United States, or upon the high seas, shall take and carry away, with an intent to steal or purloin the personal goods of another… on conviction, be fined…and…publicly whipped.”57 And Section 6 reads similarly, in part: “That if any person…having knowledge of the actual commission of the crime of wilful murder or other felony, upon the high seas, or within a fort, arsenal, dock-yard, magazine, or other place or district of country, under the sole and exclusive jurisdiction of the United States, shall conceal…on conviction thereof…shall be adjudged guilty of misprision of felony…”58 So, the 1790 crime Act did support—as Justice William Strong and the majority of the 1871 Legal Tender Cases Court also oddly commented on—a “large class of crimes other than those mentioned in the Constitution,” other than those crimes which had “direct reference…in the Constitution,” and other than that criminal jurisdiction which was “expressly conferred” in the Constitution. 59 That two precedent-setting Supreme Court opinions brought into discussion the early criminal Act(s) should strike patriots as unusual (since neither case had anything to do with any alleged crime). In reality, both cases brought up that 1790 crime Act, so the justices could effectively say that they would allow congressional action on the new topics (the 1816 bank and 1862 paper currency, respectively) in the same manner the Court could support Congress in 1790 providing for the punishment for crimes never mentioned in the Constitution, never directly referenced in the Constitution and where the explicit criminal jurisdiction was never expressly conferred in the Constitution (for murder or robbery, etc.).60 And the specific way that Congress in 1790 could punish a “large class of crimes other than those mentioned in the Constitution,” other than those crimes which had “direct reference…in the Constitution,” and other than that criminal jurisdiction which was “expressly conferred” in the Constitution were only those crimes committed “within any of the places under the sole and exclusive jurisdiction of the United States, or upon the high seas” and “upon the high seas, or within a fort, arsenal, dock-yard, magazine, or other place or district of country, under the sole and exclusive jurisdiction of the United States” or similar words to that same effect. Please realize—that despite the crimes of murder or robbery never being mentioned, never being directly referenced, or the express criminal jurisdiction for these two crimes never being overtly conferred in the Constitution—they could yet be federal crimes, because of the express words of the Constitution in Article I, Section 8, Clause 17. This unique clause empowers Congress (upon cession and acceptance of particular parcels) the express ability to exercise “exclusive” legislation “in all Cases whatsoever,” which “Cases” not only refer to “instances” but also to literal court “Cases”—and those not only civil in nature, but also literally to criminal “Cases.” So, while murder or robbery in the District Seat, or in a ceded fort or port are never expressly “mentioned” or directly “referenced” in the Constitution, nor was the express criminal jurisdiction over these explicit crimes in such places ever explicitly labelled as “crimes” or “criminal” in nature, that doesn’t mean that the Constitution doesn’t yet otherwise confer it, to Congress. In the same manner which the Supreme Court could uphold Congress making robbery or murder a federal crime “within any of the places under the sole and exclusive jurisdiction of the United States, or upon the high seas” and “upon the high seas, or within a fort, arsenal, dock-yard, magazine, or other place or district of country, under the sole and exclusive jurisdiction of the United States,” the Court could similarly support the second bank of the United States (and, in 1871, a legal tender paper currency)—within places under the sole and exclusive jurisdiction of the United States. It should also be noted that the 1790 crime Act also mentioned a few other crimes, including perjury relating to court process in Section 18, bribing a judge in Section 21 and obstruction of court process, in Section 22. Please realize that federal courthouses are located on Clause 17-based exclusive legislation parcels, as part of the “all needful Buildings” and thus State laws don’t reach these exclusive parcels—so again, there’s no foul here, for federal inclusion of these prohibitions which provide for punishment upon conviction (helpful of course to also carry out the legitimate judicial duties of the courts under Article III). In McCulloch, Marshall—and the rest of the associate judges—all unanimously agreed: “After the most deliberate consideration, it is the unanimous and decided opinion of this Court that the act to incorporate the Bank of the United States is a law made in pursuance of the Constitution, and is a part of the supreme law of the land.”61 That overt conclusion—especially the last ten words—would seem to invalidate the express premise of this book, but thankfully a similar conclusion, reached just two years later—in 1821 Cohens v. Virginia—better explains the Court’s identical reasoning there. In both cases, 1819 and 1821, holding that the exclusive legislation powers of Congress are included as “the supreme Law of the Land” and thus (potentially) binding upon States—was as simple as holding Article I, Section 8, Clause 17 to be *part* of “This Constitution” which Article VI, Clause 2 directly holds to be the “supreme Law of the Land.” Indeed, one won’t find an Article I, Section 9 limitation on the most powerful clause found in Section 8, which power reaches to all cases whatsoever (keeping that exclusive power, expressly-contained to ceded parcels). Obviously, the Framers of the Constitution—beyond perhaps Hamilton, who may well have recognized it at the time—didn’t foresee the possible misuse of this special power, beyond allowable boundaries, an oversight which has cost Americans dearly ever since. But, again, even though it wasn’t ever done then or since, doesn’t mean that we can’t yet institute the needed change, now (see Chapter 25). Given the current wording of the U.S. Constitution, congressional actions “in pursuance” of even Clause 17 theoretically bind the States (actually depending upon underlying specifics such as extradition), in the same manner that the 1790 crime Act could bind the States on crimes such as murder or robbery (on exclusive legislation parcels) at least when Defendants don’t properly defend their reserved powers/unalienable rights against invalid federal extension of an allowed special authority. For continuing investigation on this critical point, please turn next to Chapter 22. Chapter 22. 1821 Cohens v. Virginia With the ink drying on 1821 Cohens v. Virginia, Chief Justice John Marshall completed the legal groundwork necessary for full implementation in the courts, of Hamilton’s devious Constitution-bypass system and false-extension mechanism which Marshall began under 1803 Marbury and extended in 1819 McCulloch. In Cohens, Marshall took an arbitrary power, and made it fully capricious. First, he stated, that in a clash between the spirit of the Constitution and its strictest letter, the Court would side with the letter, asking and then answering: “Will the spirit of the Constitution justify this attempt to control its words? We think it will not.”62 On the same theme, Marshall later in the case similarly said that the clear words of the Constitution would overrule its spirit: “The argument in all its forms is essentially the same. It is founded not on the words of the Constitution, but on its spirit—a spirit extracted not from the words of the instrument…To this argument, in all its forms, the same answer may be given…The question then must depend on the words themselves.”63 So, in any clash in the Constitution between its spirit and its words, the Court indicated they would side with the latter. While there would be a fair amount of logic in that conclusion, please know that Marshall never really openly called out that contradiction between the letter and spirit of the Constitution, so the States could simply rectify that situation, and bring the letter and spirit back into harmony, with a simple constitutional amendment, like in 1795. Rather, the justices did everything possible, to exploit the letter, for maximum federal discretion, while hiding what they were doing. Yes, the strictest construction of the Constitution directly says that “This Constitution” is the “supreme Law of the Land” that binds the States, and strictly-speaking, even Article I, Section 8, Clause 17 is *part* of “This Constitution” so congressional laws enacted “in pursuance” of Clause 17 may yet bind the States. But, what may be binding in certain limited instances taking additional relevant factors into account (like the 1790 crime Act did) doesn’t make it binding every time, and certainly not binding every time, when defended properly against. A simple amendment could either provide a clear exemption in Article VI, for Clause 17 *never* being any part of the supreme Law of the Land (preferable) or even make Clause 17 part of the supreme law only in named instances (less preferable). Either way, there’d be no further contradiction between the letter and spirit of the Constitution, and it’d be permanently resolved, out in the open. But, resolving the inherent contradiction which currently exists between Clause 17 and Article VI, Clause 2—with the spirit holding it not to be the part of the supreme Law of the Land (so the reserved powers of the States aren’t improperly impaired) but the letter yet holding Clause 17 to still be a *part* of “This Constitution”—would necessarily foreclose Hamilton’s devious methodology from ever working again, terminating all of Government-Gone-Wrong, forever. Hamilton and Marshall never sought open consistency between the letter of the Constitution with its spirit, so they could purposefully exploit that inconsistency for all it was worth. And boy, did it ever pay off for them, in spades. Never one to reveal his devious hand, in the following passage, Marshall next took a third overt step to make the arbitrary power capricious, by hinging its use on the intent of Congress, as he despicably wrote: “Before we can impeach its validity, we must inquire whether Congress intended to empower this Corporation to do any act within a State which the laws of that State might prohibit.”64 He concluded: "Whether any particular law be designed to operate without the District of not depends on the words that law."65 In draconian manner, Marshall hinged the false extension of allowed special powers upon the intentions of Congress. In this fashion—by deviously deferring to the intentions of Congress—Marshall created an intermittent and subjective “standard,” that would be non-binding whenever the case was sufficiently argued (and exclusive legislation authority adequately exposed), but binding whenever the individual case was insufficiently defended. Indeed, if he had simply and consistently held that exclusive legislation actions bind the States, then the States could have again pushed for an Article I, Section 9 or Eleventh Amendment-style of amendment to end such nonsense. The whole thing is so vile, it’s sickening, which is why the brightest light possible needs to be directed on corruption, to end the tyranny that we've ultimately fought ever since Great Britain first spoke of an evil power binding the American colonists "in all cases whatsoever." In the end, the justices unanimously upheld the conviction of the Cohens brothers, by properly denying that the D.C.-based lottery could in this case overrule Virginia's law which forbade lotteries. In ruling in Virginia’s favor, Virginia couldn't really object, all the while, Marshall nevertheless set the dreadful precedent, that exclusive legislation laws bind the States, whenever Congress intends. By simply asserting that Congress didn’t in this case intend to bind the States—but upholding that abhorrent principle for future cases—Marshall gave tyranny the horrid foothold it would need over the following decades and centuries, such that this holding wouldn’t necessarily need to again be explicitly brought up in future cases. Of course, the true standard has nothing to do with the intentions of Congress, but only members’ delegated authority. Without direct correlation between intentions and underlying authority, the former are irrelevant. Marshall only pointed to intentions to shift arbitrary power another degree of separation-further. Just as the 1790 crime Act showed that where Congress followed legitimate constitutional principles—even when pursuing actions on topics which were never mentioned, never directly referenced, or where the express criminal jurisdiction was never expressly conferred in the Constitution—members could yet go beyond their normal delegation, because the Constitution authorized those 1790 actions, in full and consistent fashion, within its letter, considering its spirit. Although liberty-minded Americans have for 200 years complained that progressives “liberally” construe the Constitution to give its words new meaning, the truth of the matter is that progressives look to the Constitution’s strictest words (so strictly, that strict-constructionists don’t even recognize it), to operate within an allowed special authority, where they can make everything up, as they go along. The simple fix alluded to a few passages ago (and as elaborated further, in Chapter 25, below) would bring into harmony the current divide found in the Constitution between its letter and spirit, regarding Clause 17 binding the States, which would have changed all of American history, as no other possible change could have. While we cannot change history, we may certainly shift our future. There’s one last quote to examine from Cohens before shifting to Section 3 and looking to the future, which is: “Since Congress legislates in the same forms, and in the same character, in virtue of powers of equal obligation, conferred in the same instrument, when exercising its exclusive powers of legislation as well as when exercising those which are limited, we must inquire whether there be anything in the nature of this exclusive legislation which necessarily confines the operation of the laws made in virtue of this power to the place with a view to which they are made. “Connected with the power to legislate within this District is a similar power in forts, arsenals, dock yards, &c. Congress has a right to punish murder in a fort or other place within its exclusive jurisdiction, but no general right to punish murder committed within any of the States. In the act for the punishment of crimes against the United States, murder committed within a fort, or any other place or district of country under the sole and exclusive jurisdiction of the United States, is punished with death. Thus, Congress legislates in the same act under its exclusive and its limited powers.”66 The Court’s conclusion—“Congress legislates in the same act under its exclusive and its limited powers”—means that the justices have expressly bought off on the dreadful practice of members of Congress intermixing their exclusive legislation powers with their enumerated powers, even within the same legislative Act! So, patriots can now only know which power members of Congress were and are using, only by knowing well the enumerated Little Powers, with everything exceeding those express delegations being alternately supported only by Article I, Section 8, Clause 17. How’s that, for arbitrary and capricious behavior, sure to allow members every possible benefit? Remember, Marshall set all this in motion, over 200 years ago! Is it any wonder, how far our country veered off course, ever since? It’s because we were intentionally steered off course, by designing men, for the express benefit of those holding the totalitarian reins of oppressive government, able to bind the States and We The People, in all Cases whatsoever. It’s way past time, to end the tyranny. Stay tuned, on how to bring that about so fast, that it can make one’s head spin. First of all, we don’t need to *change* anything, because nothing ever done by any member of Congress—or every member of Congress—at any one time—or at all times—has actually ever changed the Constitution or the named powers that federal servants may everywhere in the Union directly exercise. And neither has any American President—or every one of them, altogether—ever changed anything that mattered. Nor has any Supreme Court justice—or all of them at any one point in time, or all of them throughout all time—ever made any changes to the Constitution or the named federal powers that may be directly exercised throughout the Union. All the nonsense over the past two centuries implemented by those exercising the delegated federal powers hasn’t ever changed anything—all the nonsense they ever implemented may be contained to D.C. or it may be cast away, permanently, in one fell swoop. While members of Congress may propose amendments, only the States get to ratify them and only ratified amendments actually change the named federal powers that may be directly exercised throughout the country. Instead, it’s only time for We The People—and the States—to wake up. We need only to learn to see through two centuries of lies. Chapter 23. Summation Section 2 sought to shine a bright light into the darkest recesses where (convention delegate and) Secretary of the Treasury Alexander Hamilton and (Secretary of State and) Chief Justice John Marshall shifted the exclusive legislation Big Powers of Congress for The Little Implementation Areas, nationwide. Both men deviously inferred that they were operating in The Big Implementation Area with the delegated Little Powers, when they were really only exercising The Big Powers allowed Congress for the District Seat and other ceded parcels, where no State had any remaining authority. Thousands of court cases pronounced since 1803 Marbury v. Madison, 1819 McCulloch v. Maryland, and 1821 Cohens v. Virginia rest upon these three primary pillars, to extend the allowed special powers of Congress, nationwide, illegitimately. But, an illegitimate false extension of special powers nationwide can never counter the supreme Law of the Land, properly defended (even as every effort possible has been to allow such a default position). Conventional legal understanding holds all of these court conclusions at face value, without ever reading between the lines, from the deeper perspective of Clause 17, according to the underlying premise of The Case Against One Hundred And One-Percent Government. Of course, anytime court rulings fail to examine federal action from the perspective of Clause 17, they’ll ignore the intentional twisting of allowed special powers for illegitimate political and economic gain. Without citing the appropriate defense—that the special federal Big Powers cannot typically bind the States, or We The People therein found, when properly defended—judges will never offer Defendants the defense they otherwise need to preserve their reserved powers or their liberty, as if they had made the correct legal arguments. So, the courts all speak to “interpretation” and “implied” powers, supposedly able to change the meaning of various words and phrases found in the Constitution, differently, than the Framers and Ratifiers meant, at time of ratification. Under these magical powers, the McCulloch Court can supposedly reinterpret “necessary and proper” to mean “convenient,” to support the second bank of the United States. And then The Legal Tender Cases 1871 opinion can, following McCulloch’s express lead, later allow the first legal tender paper currencies. Yes, it’s certainly “convenient” for the government to establish a bank, and equally convenient, to emit a legal tender paper currency, but those aren’t necessary and proper means to named ends, as the Constitution requires (as the first three Supreme Court cases which examined legal tender paper currency correctly ruled) as proven by the author’s books Monetary Laws of the United States, Dollars and nonCents, Understanding Federal Tyranny, and The Patriot Quest books (see also The Beacon Spotlight, Issues 29-38).67 Indeed, if the true standard is only “whatever’s convenient,” then following that logic, “Year”—dealing with term lengths and election intervals—could for these two purposes be narrowed to a special “Political Year,” to mean instead a “decade” or “century,” too. After all, it would certainly be “convenient” for incumbents to hold their seats (and Presidential offices) for ten or 100 times as long (if they’re truly that powerful, they’d assuredly have very long lifespans)—not to mention less costly and less cumbersome, than holding frequent elections—as shown in the author’s fiction novel, Trapped by Political Desire: The Novel (where the protagonist sets a trap, over “interpretation,” by carrying a claimed power, too far, to expose the web of lies). Section 3: The Future, and Where To Go, Tomorrow How to Respond, Going Forward, to Restore Our American Republic Introduction to Section 3 Ever since Marshall drove the last nail in the limited-government coffin in 1821, it would be difficult to miss the escalating political disconnect—the growing divide—between our country’s founding principles and everyday federal actions. Of course, things are so bad now, that in the incessant clash between our founding principles and everyday federal actions, Americans routinely accept, if not believe, that the latter may overrule the former, because they have witnessed this lie their whole lives. It’s not that patriots want that outcome—indeed, most are quite vocal about their extreme dissatisfaction with it—it’s just that few have sufficiently searched for answers diligently enough and now only react, in futile effort to “do something.” And the answer typically given is to root for their favored guy or gal in elections, where winner-take-all outcomes are offered. In practice, this proves to be an incessant search for angels to elect to positions of unlimited power, in hopes that omnipotent power will be benignly exercised in one’s favor (only to see them turn into devils, afterwards). While it’s understandable why those pushing for unlimited federal authority play The Great Democracy Game—because they have no chance of winning under the inviolable rules of our Constitutional Republic—why on earth would Republicans, libertarians and others who want individual liberty and limited government concentrate so heavily on this game and ignore what really matters? The answer is because we don’t know any better, so we jump headfirst into a game which puts all of our founding principles on the table, and then wonder why we lose precious ground every election season. In this drive to push politics into every nook and cranny—no matter the few subjects the Constitution discusses—way too many enthusiastic voters ridicule and attempt to humiliate non-voters as apathetic, when they’re merely disgusted with the whole darn mess. Why pick the lesser of two evils who will rule over them as tyrants, when election promises fade as quickly as the outcome is announced? It would be better not to get overly wrapped up in voting and elections—Democracy—(at the federal level) and instead spend one’s time, efforts and money searching for real answers, because we can cure what we can accurately diagnose, even as it’s really tough to diagnose what we don’t know. Patriots need to realize that at the federal level—when the election winners and appointed federal officers are limited to the exercise of the named federal powers implemented using necessary and proper means—who wins doesn’t matter anywhere near as much, as their actions still have to be necessary and proper means to named ends. Of course, the best way forward is to get informed about the real message and then spread that word—learn and then tell others—so we may permanently work to cast off The Make-Believe Rule of Paper Tyrants who proclaim magical powers, when there’s no magic, and then simply vote without a great deal of fanfare. So vote, but don’t spend all one’s time and money there. Instead, use your available resources to spread the right message, even getting incumbents and challengers to discuss what really matters. We cannot give up our founding principles and our Republican Form of Government, and accept in its place Anything-Goes Government, where everything’s up for grabs, and expect any kind of real victory, no matter how successful an occasional election outcome may sporadically be. It is incomparably foolish to allow those casting and/or counting the votes, the spectacular prize of inherent federal discretion, everywhere-exercised, merely because—through whatever means possible—they succeeded in garnering a majority. These United States of America were established in decided contravention to such evil, which can never be valid herein. Chapter 24. Going Forward, Without An Amendment The first option going forward is simply that of full exposure, without pursuing an amendment, the latter of which (under normal circumstances) is very tough, indeed. After all, the U.S. Senate website lists approximately 11,985 attempts to amend the Constitution, even as only 27 proposals have been ratified to date.68 But, that difficulty in ratifying amendments and making true changes to the Constitution is precisely why we’re still so protected today, because there have only been 27 ratified amendments, even with thousands of direct attempts (let alone all the devious bypasses). For a moment, think of members of Congress as horses (readers may decide the type). The named federal powers in this case keep the horses in secure stables in a sturdy barn, allowing federal jockeys to take the horses out and ride them on designated paths throughout the whole country, for expressly-listed federal purposes. The District of Columbia, though, is yet a fenced corral, where the horses may run wild without rider, even as the corral is limited in size to ten miles square (100 square miles). But, over decades and centuries of neglect, the corral is now in utter shambles and even the gate is missing. The wildest of stallions broke out long ago and now freely roam the country. Docile horses even come and go when they see fit, though a few may hang around closer to the barn, than the others. Now, even without rebuilding the corral, and even without securing the gate, we can nevertheless post sentries at every hill and valley, such that every mile of the perimeter may be closely monitored, so no horse runs free wherever they want anymore (instead, outside the corral, only when a federal rider guides them on designated paths). And, even if the sentries don’t carry scoped rifles to shoot escaped horses on sight, they may still use bullhorns and signal flares, and sound the alarm whenever a wayward horse goes astray, without rider. Yes, it will take more than a handful of diligent monitors. It will also take skilled cowboys to chase after the escaped horses with capable rides of their own, to rope the errant horses into submission and bring them back to the corral, even though wild and woolly. It will be tough repetitive work, but as even the wildest of stallions learn that they won’t get far—that they’ll be quickly brought back to their corral every time they escape—they’ll get out fewer times and travel shorter distances than ever before. While it would make a great amount of sense simply to build a robust corral and lock a fortified gate, as with the Once and For All Amendment—or even tear down the corral with the Happily-Ever-After Amendment (and in that harsh case, lock all horses in secure stalls in the sturdy barn—never to run free again, but always either in a locked stall in an inescapable barn or out under the rein of a federal rider)— formal amendments take a great deal of effort and cost more money than a few sentries and cowboys could ever pull off. So, at least until the numbers in favor rise sufficiently, it’s prudent simply to ignore any push for amendments and instead teach willing participants to stand guard as additional sentries at the fenceline, and properly equip them with searchlights, bullhorns and signal flares. Then, as people within earshot and visual distance learn what the sounds and sights signify, perhaps some of the choir will volunteer for training to become cowboys, to go fetch the errant horses. This route is all about teaching patriots to become sentries and cowboys, to learn to stand guard and raise awareness, one person at a time. Don’t dismiss this effort, simply because it will take work. Please realize that wild stallions may be brought back to the corral, even if the fence is quite dilapidated and even if the gate is missing.69 The great thing about success is that each small success breeds further success, as attention gets drawn to that which works. Yes, wild horses like to run and do as they please, wherever they want, but that doesn’t mean that we can’t start teaching sentries and training cowboys, to domesticate the wild ponies again. Since the grunt-work will take a great deal of diligence, at some future point, it’s inevitable that addressing the corral will begin to make sense. Let’s look at that option, next. To make sure patriots realize it, the amendment proposals won’t necessarily be the means to “bring the horses back” (i.e., that we won’t regain liberty until one of the amendment proposals get ratified). Instead, we first get the horses back into the corral by understanding how they ever got out and getting a sufficient number of competent cowboys to bring them back and sentries to keep the horses from ever escaping. Ratifying an amendment will be then the efficient means of performing that worthy effort, without constant vigilance. So, no carts before horses, please. It’s about bringing the wild horses back, with an amendment then keeping them there. The one or other of the amendments will be primarily about deciding where the horses will be kept—in a corral which yet allows them to run freely, someplace, or in a barn where they can’t ever get any exercise beyond when a federal rider from one of the States takes them out of the barn under rein. Chapter 25. The Once and For All Amendment It’s true, the U.S. Constitution—as ratified and amended—currently contains no specific exemption, which would expressly-exempt Article I, Section 8, Clause 17, from ever being considered as *part* of “This Constitution” which Article VI, Clause 2 declares to be the “supreme Law of the Land” that binds the States through their judges. But, what binds the States in the fewest of actual circumstances hardly means that the States will be similarly bound, in the remainder of instances, under that unique clause (when enforced correctly). And, neither does it mean that we cannot now change the Constitution, by proposing and ratifying a new constitutional amendment, to keep the said clause from ever being considered any part of the supreme Law of the Land (from ever binding the States—or, perhaps, at most, binding them only in named circumstances). The great thing about an amendment is that once it’s ratified, it works automatically in every case, against the false extension of allowed special powers, beyond legitimate geographic boundaries. In other words, rebuilding the corral will keep every mare, gelding and stallion properly contained, and any gate that previously allowed horses to escape will now be kept locked. Horses may yet run free, but thereafter only in their small corral, which they cannot escape. Enter the Patriot Corps’ One and For All Amendment to end the false extension of allowed special powers, beyond proper boundaries. In 1821 Cohens v. Virginia, Chief Justice John Marshall expressly-admitted the single underlying legal point upon which rests the very foundation of all of Government-Gone-Wrong, when he wrote: “The clause which gives exclusive jurisdiction is, unquestionably, a part of the Constitution, and, as such, binds all the United States.”70 But, importantly, Clause 17 doesn’t always bind the several States, even as it may currently, if and when certain parameters are met. Marshall later indicated when the exclusive legislation laws of Congress for the District Seat may extend beyond exclusive legislation grounds and bind the States, when he wrote: “Whether any particular law be designed to operate without the District or not depends on the words of that law.”71 Simply put, when the words of any law exceed the legal parameters of the 99%-authorized Little Powers (implemented using necessary and proper means) then that “law” will either find support only from the available Big Powers, meant for The Little Implementation Areas or be denied any authority whatsoever (and held as “unconstitutional”). In those cases, the extended “law” may not operate “without” or “beyond” exclusive legislation parcels, when appropriately challenged and properly defended. But, if Defendants don’t accurately-defend against the false extension of allowed special powers, then exclusive legislation Big Powers by their current default will get extended beyond the boundaries of The Little Implementation Areas, and the Defendants will lose their case. It was also 1821 Cohens v. Virginia where and when Marshall deviously and effectively reversed the Abnormal Situation ordinarily operating, instead of the Normal Situation (changing the current default situation), when he wrote: “Those who contend that Acts of Congress, made in pursuance of this power, do not, like Acts made in pursuance of other powers, bind the nation, ought to show some safe and clear rule which supports their contention.”72 Marshall knew—because he already looked—that there was no “safe and clear rule” which at that time (or since) supported the contention that exclusive legislation laws of Congress for the District Seat never bind the States, against their will. In the quoted passage, Marshall placed the burden of proof on those defending against exclusive legislation laws binding the States, because it’s so powerful that it allows most anything; that was also the only way his deception could succeed; and no one challenged him. However, that doesn’t prevent those who clearly and consistently defend their birthright from blowing apart the whole kit and caboodle, because exclusive legislation actions which directly-bind the States are actually very few and far between (and that central fact cannot be changed, except through the amendment process). In 1833 Ex parte Randolph, Chief Justice John Marshall indicated that when any legal challenge may be decided without addressing the law’s constitutionality, the court will avoid the question, saying: “No questions can be brought before a judicial tribunal of greater delicacy than those which involve the constitutionality of a legislative act. If they become indispensably necessary to the case, the court must meet and decide them; but if the case may be determined on other points, a just respect for the legislature requires, that the obligation of its laws should not be unnecessarily and wantonly assailed.”73 It was in the 1871 Legal Tender Cases opinion—which first upheld legal tender paper currencies (really only under Clause 17, for D.C.)—that justices wrote that they would presume the legitimacy of members’ actions (in that instance, that the 1862 Legal Tender Act was valid), because of members’ sworn oaths. Note here how an otherwise-honorable principle may yet be twisted for harm, while giving members an unearned benefit of the doubt: “A decent respect for a co-ordinate branch of the government demands that the judiciary should presume, until the contrary is clearly shown, that there has been no transgression of power by Congress—all the members of which act under the obligation of an oath of fidelity to the Constitution.”74 Precisely because members of Congress give their respective oaths to support the Constitution—which necessarily binds them to its terms—then the Court presumes, absent sufficient evidence otherwise, that members act within their named authority (even if and when that authority is really only under Article I, Section 8, Clause 17)! Washington State’s laws don’t bind Oregon or California, or vice versa, and neither do the exclusive legislation laws of Congress for D.C. otherwise bind the States on any regular basis, either, for the same reason—to keep each State as the only lawmaker for State-level laws within its borders. Thankfully, just because the presently-worded Constitution doesn’t currently provide the “safe and clear rule” that prevents the exclusive-legislation Acts of Congress from (regularly) binding the States, doesn’t mean that we cannot now simply and finally *make one*. Enter the Patriot Corps’ Once and For All Amendment, to permanently end the false extension of an allowed special tyranny, beyond allowable borders, to say something to the effect: “The seventeenth clause of the eighth section of the first article of the Constitution for the United States of America shall not be construed to be any part of the supreme Law of the Land, under the second clause of the sixth article of the said Constitution.”75 The *shall not be construed* wording is the most important wording of the proposal, which follows the lead from the Eleventh Amendment, ratified in 1795 (which overturned the 1793 Supreme Court ruling in Chisholm v. Georgia—where the Supreme Court had there ruled as the States weren’t willing to concede). This new amendment, once ratified, wouldn’t yet prevent current extraneous federal actions, but would nevertheless contain them to operate only on exclusive legislation lands. Don’t like the alphabet agencies? Don’t worry, their reach, after ratification, would be limited to D.C. and other exclusive parcels. Regulations imposed by alphabet-agency-bureaucrats couldn’t again affect the Union of States, because the States and We The People cannot be deprived of Legislative Representation, which is guaranteed to every State of the Union, under Article IV, Section 4. Don’t like the Federal Reserve System, gun control legislation, federal education parameters, federal health mandates and every other erroneous federal action that patriots rail against?76 The extensive harm from exclusive-legislation actions would, after ratification, be limited to exclusive legislation parcels (since they aren’t actually *part* of the Union of States [but necessarily exist outside or otherwise apart from that express Union—largely the same as foreign embassies aren’t subject to normal federal or State laws, either]). The proposed Once and For All Amendment, once ratified, would necessarily-keep each State’s reserved powers fully intact, preventing invalid exclusive-legislation infringement—as the Framers and Ratifiers intended, before devious crooks figured out how to bypass those original intentions, and began to implement what was never meant to be allowed, except in and on exclusive legislation parcels. The spirit of the Constitution would naturally exempt Clause 17 from the supreme Law of the Land holding under Article VI, to keep intact the States’ reserved powers and Americans’ unalienable rights. However, the current letter of the Constitution provides no express exemption. Thus, the purpose of the new amendment, to align the spirit of the Constitution with its strictest letter in this matter. Proposing and ratifying the Once and For All Amendment would answer Marshall’s 1821 challenge, so there would finally be a “safe and clear rule” which supports the contention that Clause 17 doesn’t ever *bind* the States (or except as exceptions thereafter allow). No longer could the Court falsely extend “interpreted” words and phrases, when they were only ever given a new meaning, only for D.C. and other exclusive legislation parcels in the first place. Indeed, in the 1871 Legal Tender Cases, the majority bragged that the 1819 McCulloch v. Maryland Court effectively changed the meaning of “necessary and proper” to mean only “convenient,” saying, in 1871, about the 1816 bank: “a corporation known as the United States Bank was early created…Its incorporation was a constitutional exercise of congressional power for no other reason than that it was deemed to be a convenient… means…in the language of the first article, already quoted, "necessary and proper" for carrying into execution some or all the powers vested in the government. Clearly this necessity, if any existed, was not a direct and obvious one.”77 Again, the 1819 Court could only do as the 1871 Court bragged, where the justices (and Congress) may act superior to the Constitution, which is in and for the District of Columbia. “Necessary and proper” may be “indirectly” switched to mean “convenient” only where federal servants are allowed to become political masters, the places where they must make up their own rules. Chapter 26. The Happily-Ever-After Amendment While the Patriot Corps’ Once and For All Amendment wouldn’t end onerous federal actions, the amendment would nevertheless contain them, to exclusive legislation parcels. However, the Patriot Corps’ Happily-Ever-After Amendment would absolutely bar and immediately terminate all currently-imposed federal tyranny, that operates outside the spirit of the Constitution (probably some 95% of all existing federal activity). The Patriot Corps’ Happily-Ever-After Amendment would simply repeal Article I, Section 8, Clause 17 in its entirety, meaning that after ratification, all governing powers throughout the whole Union would thereafter be divided into named federal authority and reserved State powers, period, over every square foot of American soil. Never again could Congress enact anything beyond members’ named powers, implemented using necessary and proper means, because there wouldn’t any longer be any places where the States weren’t in full control of their reserved powers.78 No executive agency bureaucrats could impose regulations held as law, because “Independent Establishments” and “Government Corporations” wouldn’t be allowed, but instead left up to the States (except those few things the Constitution expressly prohibits the States, which would then be reserved to We The People). While leaving the States to go forward 50 different ways may not seem like much help to leftist, progressive States (Washington, Oregon, California or Massachusetts, for example) once the States regained their legitimate governing authority from federal overreach, the existence of even a single conservative State (an Idaho, Wyoming, South Dakota or New Hampshire, for example), would prove sufficient to keep tyrannical States from their current decline. Free States would prove the way forward for all the world to see, by offering a competitive model, which would directly pressure the progressive States from continuing their excessive harm (while also removing the false claim, that they were simply following [inappropriate] federal mandates, on the States’ reserved powers). The Patriot Corps Happily-Ever-After Amendment—following the lead of the Twenty-First Amendment (which repealed prohibition imposed by the Eighteenth Amendment)—would simply say something like: “The seventeenth clause of the eighth section of the first article of the Constitution for the United States of America, is hereby repealed, and all previously-ceded and accepted parcels are hereby retroceded back to the particular State which had originally ceded them.” The Twenty-Third Amendment would also need to be repealed, as Washington, D.C. was retroceded back to Maryland, since there’d be no more District Seat.79 Under repeal of Article I, Section 8, Clause 17, every square foot of American soil in all of the 50 States of the American Union would thereafter necessarily fall under the Normal Situation—thereafter, the “Only Situation”—divided into named federal powers and reserved State authority (or reverted back to We The People). Repeal of Clause 17 wouldn’t affect the titled ownership of any federal lands—they’d still be federally-owned, they just could no longer be federally-governed in an exclusive manner. The reserved powers of the States would reach every parcel, even as the States would allow appropriate federal deference, in full accordance with the supreme Law of the Land designation of appropriate federal laws. Never again could federal servants act like political masters, because nowhere would they still have inherent authority.80 Instead, they’d only have their delegated powers, which they could only apply using necessary and proper means. All of the current Anything-Goes Government implemented in States today necessarily needs the smallest measure of truth to be implemented in the first place, and that false authorization is necessarily reliant upon Article I, Section 8, Clause 17—the only clause which amounts to inherent discretion, free from normal constitutional parameters (that otherwise necessarily involve States). All of the clever legislative Enactments, Presidential Proclamations, Executive Orders, and goofy Supreme Court rulings which are otherwise beyond the delegated powers, applied using necessary and proper means, all necessarily have as their false base, the exclusive legislative powers of Congress, for the District Seat. All of the ridiculous explanations proffered by federal tyrants are but absurd diversions, to keep us from figuring out how they ignore or bypass their normal constitutional parameters with impunity. Don’t listen to them, any more than Dorothy should have listened to MGM’s Wizard of Oz proclaim “pay no attention to that man behind the curtain.” Rest assured, place all of your attention on the man behind the curtain, to understand what’s going on, to stop it. Repeal that special authority and all pretense of being able to act on extraneous ends summarily-ceases, without equivocation. While only specific “places” are truly impacted by the exclusive legislation powers, the whole game is rigged so that if no one expressly-points-out that “they aren’t in those places,” they’ll be roped into that place’s exclusive legislation powers, no matter where they are. Don’t waste your time speaking to political opponents—instead search out other members of the choir, who will hold onto your every word, as you teach them what they’ve overlooked their whole lives. Our Constitutional Republic isn’t about numbers, it’s about principles. Preach those principles to whoever will listen. Chapter 27. The Best Path Forward? The decided benefit to the Happily-Ever-After Amendment is that there’s little need to go into all the in-depth legal analysis which the Once and For All Amendment ultimately needs, to support it. To gain support for the Once and For All Amendment, the explanation found in The Case Against One Hundred And One-Percent Government is needed, or at least a good portion of it. However, if we instead simply promote wholesale repeal of Article I, Section 8, Clause 17 (and the Twenty-Third Amendment), we can argue it’s time to end an alternately-allowed special authority, because the special federal powers needed when Congress, the Presidency and the federal courts were feeble and weak aren’t needed any longer. While the simplicity of repeal is its own strength, it could yet be said that its harshness may even be its weakness—that it’s so severe, that it would shock the nation, too abruptly. But, can one imagine, that after 235 years of steady constitutional decay and degradation, there’s finally the tool needed, to lop off all of federal excess, in one fell swoop? Everything beyond the strictest-construction of the words of the Constitution, finally in full alignment with its spirit, would summarily end, at the moment of ratification. All of Government-Gone-Wrong would be gone, without magic, which is nonexistent in the first place. We have never faced enchanted powers to begin with, so neither do we need them to end The Make-Believe Rule of Paper Tyrants who proclaim mythical powers to support whatever they do. Obviously, those who push for extreme federal power would hate the Once and For All Amendment, but would absolutely detest the Happily-Ever-After Amendment. But, what can they necessarily do about either of them, to stave them off? For starters, they’ll undoubtedly ignore patriot efforts to broadcast far and wide the information that explains what we actually face and shows how to cure it, in hopes that no one will listen. By giving this work no mention, no refutation, no credence, they’ll help avoid a controversy which could thrust the information into the limelight. Once the effort becomes sufficiently popular that it’s brought up in conversations, however, opponents will undoubtedly ridicule the information and call proponents names, in attempt to belittle us. But, should the ideas continue to grow into wider awareness and even acceptance, what can opponents really do, to refute them? They’ll certainly argue that constitutional law is much too involved for mere mortals to understand, that amendment proponents are simply uneducated, naïve and ill-informed on the complex legal issues that matter, because 200 years of Court rulings hold to the contrary. But persistence will pay off, if we concentrate on preaching to the choir—those who already want to listen and learn—while ignoring those who stand in our way. Think of Dorothy realizing that the Wizard was but a con man who operated the microphone, switches, and levers behind the curtain—once Toto revealed the truth to her, it was game-over for the Wizard’s lies. There is no going back to living under lies, once the truth becomes known. So, going forward, what are the real options? Yes, first, individually get informed and then tell others. But what about when some real numbers start to develop—what then? It’s best to push for an amendment, precisely because opponents are so devious and clever—but don’t worry about that last step, for now. Though it’s a high hurdle, it’s yet fairly simple to push Congress to propose an amendment. That won’t happen, of course, until people understand what’s going on and begin to exert political pressure on their U.S. Representatives and U.S. Senators, to induce them to step up. While only one or the other of the two amendments would be needed, that doesn’t mean that we can’t use both of them, for leverage. Push Congress to quickly propose the Once and For All Amendment, but use the convention process as the sledgehammer to prompt members to step up and do the right thing quickly, or face the States directly pushing for an Article V Convention for proposing amendments, to repeal Clause 17, with the Happily-Ever-After Amendment. Pushing both routes would induce members of Congress—if they want to save current exclusive legislation actions at least for the District Seat—to step up, or risk losing everything. If they want to save any of the current bureaucracy, then at some point they’d need to offer up the Once and For All Amendment. This approach, of using the Happily-Ever-After Amendment as the “Sledgehammer” to induce Congress to quickly propose the Once and For All Amendment, again won’t gain any traction until enough States get on board, though, threatening a Convention. While this author is against current Convention efforts—because pushing for amendments without first accurately diagnosing what we face will only lead to greater harm (think of current recommendations [which ignore the single federal issue of Clause 17] as equivalent with the Seventeenth Amendment, on steroids)—that doesn’t mean those pushing the current Convention process cannot be sufficiently informed to steer their efforts ever-so-slightly, to actually make the Convention process of Article V into the weapon the Framers envisioned, without credible danger of a runaway convention.81 But, there is yet another path forward, without need for a convention, to get our favored amendment. Patriots themselves will initially balk, though, because it first looks like we’d be conceding the battle to our political opponents (if not letting them win the whole war). But, that false initial appearance could yet be its biggest draw (if patriots will yet take the time to examine the benefit, anyway). We could work directly with our political opponents and give them one of the things they most desire, that they’d never get, without our help—D.C.-Statehood (via amendment). Now, readers at this point may think that the author has here completely lost his mind, but please allow an explanation. D.C.-Statehood (offered quickly by Congress and without danger of a convention)—if coupled with complete repeal of Clause 17—would offer patriots a realistic way to accomplish their greatest dream, quickly, with what would only amount to an irrelevant concession. Patriots would pit our country’s founding principles against our opponents’ political expediency. This is a battle which America’s founding principles would win every time, if knowledgeably fought. Yes—with D.C.-Statehood coupled with Repeal of Clause 17—progressives would indeed get two perpetually-liberal U.S. Senators and one far-left-leaning U.S. Representative, but those three—even if every remaining Representative and Senator all also turned left-ward—would thereafter yet only be able to exercise the named federal powers, using necessary and proper means. Gone would be inherent discretion, which ever allowed them to do any damage in the first place, because their Constitution-bypass system and false-extension mechanism had been summarily extinguished with Repeal. After ratification, all governing powers would finally be divided into named federal powers and reserved State authority, everywhere. For people who worry about “Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards and other needful Buildings”—they needn’t worry. A 1956 intergovernmental panel long ago largely recommended retrocession of exclusive legislation parcels back to the particular State which had originally ceded the separate parcels to Congress (D.C. wasn’t examined—since a local legislative body already operated there). The report noted viewpoint-after-viewpoint, from officials across the spectrum of federal departments and the States, that the exclusive legislation powers of Congress harkened back to an early era when the federal government was like a feeble infant, unable to protect itself from the powerful States. For example, take the words of the Attorney General of Kentucky, as he responded to an inquiry regarding “the most secret of all federal activities”—the Atomic Energy Commission located in Kentucky: “The transfer of jurisdiction to the Federal Government is as anachronism which has survived from the period of our history when Federal powers were so strictly limited that care had to be taken to protect the Federal Government from encroachment by officials of the all-powerful States. Needless to say, this condition is now exactly reversed. If there is any activity which the Federal Government cannot undertake on its own property without the cession of jurisdiction, we are unaware of it. “It is our hope that your Committee will be able to recommend a retrocession to Kentucky of all of the Federal enclaves in this State, so that our local governments, our law courts, our administrative agencies and our Federal officials themselves may cease to be vexed with this annoying and useless anachronism.”82 Since 1956, federal authorities stepped up the process of terminating the “vexing” exclusive legislation authority, due to the inherent difficulties involving areas without residual State authority. The increase in retrocessions stemmed from conclusions such as from the Judge Advocate General of the Navy, who expressly declared: “there is no connection between security of a base and the jurisdictional status of the site.”83 The U.S. Department of the Army noted that it didn’t need exclusive legislative jurisdiction status to protect its bases (please note that only 41% by number, and 20% by acreage, of 574 Army bases were even then located on exclusive legislation grounds in the first place).84 Comments from this report all related to the latter half of Article I, Section 8, Clause 17 for forts, magazines, arsenals, dockyards and other needful buildings—what about the first half of Clause 17, relating to D.C.? Again, progressive liberals have pushed D.C.-Statehood since 1980 (exempting out only the White House, National Mall, etc.). So, for two and even three generations, now, separate movements have been afoot, against both halves of the whole clause. And, the most significant point—the original reason for the clause itself is no longer relevant. The U.S. Government, as landowner, or even lease-holder, may fully hold its own now, against State governments and protect itself, without exclusive legislation power. Therefore, there’s no valid reason today to keep Clause 17 any longer. So, by working with our adversaries who have promoted D.C.-Statehood for 45 years, we’d get a long way towards outright repeal of the single cause of all American tyranny, such that we’d only need a few of our friends, to get the remainder of the way there! We should not summarily ignore that enticing thought, without full and careful consideration! But, what if progressive D.C.-Statehood proponents realize that with full repeal, the danger to their continued absolute rule and withdraw their support? Thankfully, they’re already on the record now, for two generations, pushing D.C.-Statehood. Should they back away now, only because we stipulate full repeal of Clause 17 yet gives patriots superb talking points, about why progressives are now running from one of their most-cherished prizes, especially since Clause 17 is no longer needed for its original purposes. If progressives retreat from D.C.-Statehood because of full Clause 17 repeal, we can easily point out their duplicity, showing here that they never cared about District residents lacking legislative representation in Congress—but that their proposal was yet again all about cheating the system, as always, this time to get three perpetually-leaning leftist progressives merely to bolster their ranks. With D.C.-Statehood and Repeal of Clause 17, the former trust lands of Maryland wouldn’t go back to Maryland, in retrocession, like when Virginia received back Alexandria in 1846. Thus, with D.C.-Statehood, Maryland would have to explicitly buy off on the process, even if it took some concessions from the other States to induce Maryland’s agreement. Please note that with Repeal, every square foot of Clause 17 exclusive legislation powers and properties must be terminated, completely, one way or another. Remember, this theoretical power is so powerful, that Alexander Hamilton used it even before the District Seat was created. We cannot leave even one square foot of exclusive legislation property, nor leave any part of the exclusive powers of that clause intact. And, specific mention in any new amendment should ensure that only one new State shall be formed and only in D.C.—every other parcel should be fully retroceded back to the State which originally ceded each of those other separate parcels. We shouldn’t allow a large number of targeted micro-States to take over the Senate and skew authority there (even though with repeal, we’d be protected).85 We must remain ever-vigilant so we don’t let brilliant and clever progressives continue to pull the wool over our eyes. Sadly, the biggest disadvantage of this D.C.-Statehood and Clause 17 Repeal plan would undoubtedly come from our own side—that too many conservative patriots wouldn’t take the time and effort needed to study it. Instead, they’ll likely react wildly, without due consideration, and would falsely believe proponents have sold out the patriot cause. They will undoubtedly spread wide accusations that advocates of D.C.-Statehood and Clause 17 Repeal are RINOs (Republicans In Name Only), if not traitors. Which means that before pursuing this option, that we’ll have our work cut out for us, to first explain what’s going on—explain where we are today, then how we got here and why our plan, going forward, will work. In other words, we’re back then to referring everyone even potentially interested, to The Case Against One Hundred And One-Percent Government or teaching them what it’s all about it. Since teaching patriots is both the first and last step, as well as the most important step, please consider simply stepping up to the plate, and take the time and effort needed to teach everyone you know and meet to become effective visionaries who may finally help Restore Our American Republic. Chapter 28: Summation The single most-important thing patriots may do now is learn how we’re being snookered, by federal servants who want to become our political masters, so that they may feather their own nests, and do whatever they please, with impunity. So, first, learn. Then, tell others. First learn and then tell others—ultimately, it’s that simple, because truth adequately-disseminated extinguishes all lies. We don’t need to concentrate all of our federal efforts on seeking to elect angels to exercise unlimited powers over us in a benevolent fashion—we need to end the tyranny currently being exercised, no matter who gets elected or appointed. Keep the powers to those named—no matter who gets elected or appointed—like the Framers intended, when they declared our freedom from absolute rule and established our founding principles. May God Bless our effort, to Restore Our American Republic (even Once and For All or Happily-Ever-After, if ultimately needed). While we don’t necessarily need either of these two amendments (and no other amendment will work, which doesn’t directly-address this false root), it’s yet nice to know the last steps in our liberty-minded efforts, if time proves they’re ultimately needed. But, at this early point, we needn’t worry about the last steps, first. First, we learn, and then we tell others—concentrate on those two things, for now. To join others on that quest, visit PatriotCorps.org. To learn more, please see Matt Erickson’s 14 books (12 of which are in the public domain, and freely-available electronically), at: www.PatriotCorps.org www.FoundationForLiberty.org www.Archive.org About the Author Past Proprietor of several failed businesses, Matt Erickson is the Founder and President of the (for-profit) Patriot Corps and the (non-profit) Foundation For Liberty. God willing, in 2026 and beyond, Matt proposes to spend less time at home in Quincy, Washington and more time on the road telling others, seeing America and visiting his two stepchildren and nine grandchildren. If you see him and his wife Pam on the road, make sure you honk or wave (or both)! Books by the Author (Non-Fiction, first): Fiction Novels: Printed List of Books Non-Fiction: 2012: Monetary Laws of the United States. Public domain. 2014: Dollars and nonCents. Public domain. 2015: The Patriot Quest to Restore Our American Republic. Public domain. 2018: Waging War without Congress First Declaring It. Public domain. 2019: Understanding Federal Tyranny. Public domain. 2021: Two Hundred Years of Tyranny. Public domain. (revised 2022). 2024: Learn The Constitution And ROAR. Copyrighted (but pdf released December 21, 2025). Fiction: Bald Justice trilogy: Public domain. 2013: Bald Justice. 2013: Base Tyranny. 2015: Bare Liberty. 2017: The Peculiar Conundrum. Public domain. 2018: Fighting Back Against The Decree of ’33. Public domain. 2020: Trapped by Political Desire: The Treatise. Public domain. 2023: Trapped by Political Desire: The Novel (copyrighted [but pdf released December 21, 2025]). Newsletters: The Beacon Spotlight (Issues 1-42) The Beacon of Liberty (Volume I: Issues 1-12; Vol. II, Issues 1-12; and Vol. III, Issues 1-9) 1 Numbered without consideration of the initial number column, itself. 2 See Row 1 of the preceding chart (with each chapter corresponding to the numbered chart row). Column 2 (numbered without consideration of the number column) of the chart speaks to the Normal Situation, whereas Column 3 addresses the Abnormal Situation, regarding the topic being discussed on that Row. 3 We’ll ignore the Amendments entirely in our discussion, to simplify matters (as they don’t alter the fundamental points herein discussed). 4 Again, we’re ignoring the amendments, here insignificant. 5 In his 2024 book Learn The Constitution And ROAR, Matt Erickson speaks of the 98% of the U.S. Constitution which addresses normal government action, plus the 1% special authority for D.C. (Art. I:8:17), plus a final 1% “helper” clause (Art. VI, Cl. 2)—the latter of which was meant to add to the 98% normal case to carry legitimate federal actions, nationwide. Erickson’s intention in Learn The Constitution And ROAR was to always keep federal action (good and bad) at 100%, but this perhaps didn’t explain or show federal overreach very well. In The Case Against One Hundred and One-Percent Government, however, he alternately chose here to allow supernumerary conditions over 100%, to better-show invalid federal authority falsely-extended beyond allowable boundaries. So, in the present book, concentrating less on the Source of Authority, but instead referring to Extent of Action, the math became, for Normal Situations 99% + 1% (each situation limited to their appropriate sphere [to equal 100%), but for Abnormal Situations 99% + x + 1%, when extending exclusive legislative actions illicitly. Again, this change between the two books, now allowing supernumerary conditions, was to better show the false extension of allowed special powers, beyond exclusive legislation boundaries (falsely-extending exclusive legislation “x” actions beyond exclusive legislation parcels, through invalid 1% help from Art. VI, Cl. 2). 6 Please realize that western public lands were meant to be sold for debt reduction and populating them, so that new States could enter the Union on an “equal footing” with the original States. Section 22 of the August 4, 1790 Act (Chapter 35) to make provision for the public debt (Volume I, Statutes at Large, Page 138 @ 144 [I Stat. 138 @ 144]) detailed (italics added): “That the proceeds of the sales which shall be made of lands in the western territory, now belonging, or that may hereafter belong to the United States, shall be… appropriated towards sinking or discharging the debts, for the payment whereof the United States now are, or by virtue of this act may be holden, and shall be applied solely to that use until the said debts shall be fully satisfied.” 7 Extradition matters involving Article I, Section 8, Clause 17-related crimes (on exclusive legislation soil) would yet be an allowed exception. This would allow federal marshals to chase nationwide alleged suspects of Clause 17-related crimes carried out on exclusive legislation soil, and escaped, already-convicted prisoners, who fled to one of the States, without formal extradition. Please realize that federal marshals may already bypass extradition on all federal criminal jurisdiction matters that the U.S. Constitution expressly-gives to Congress (involving treason, counterfeiting the current coin and securities, and piracy, which together form the Constitution’s true federal criminal jurisdiction). Clause 17-based criminal cases are additionally included, however, under Art. I, Sec. 8, Cl. 17 and its wording “in all Cases whatsoever” (and that’s why exclusive legislation criminal cases—on exclusive legislation soil—can bind the States, on extradition matters). 8 https://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/debates_618.asp. 1787, June 18. 9 Ibid. 10 If the President signs the proposed bill within his allotted time—even if members of Congress had already adjourned—then the bill becomes law, according to its terms (or if no timeline is specified, then upon the President’s signature). 11 James Madison actually introduced at the Constitutional Convention, on August 18th, what eventually became Article I, Section 8, Clause 17, when he introduced 20 prospective clauses. https://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/debates_818.asp 12 The area south and west of the Potomac River was retroceded back to Virginia in 1846, so only the areas north and east of the Potomac are now within the District of Columbia (the former lands of Maryland). 13 It should be mentioned that the prohibited State governing powers—in Article I, Section 10—that also weren’t given to federal authorities, were thus reserved back to We The People, at large (and therefore not represented in the pie chart of allowed governing authority). 14 Again, looking at the amendments doesn’t bring anything material into the conversation, and would thus only muddle it unnecessarily (so the amendments are here ignored). 15 See also Chapter 15. 16 See Article I, Section 2, Clause 1 and Article I, Section 3, Clause 1 (and the 17th Amendment). 17 Or, by the Declaration of Independence, more-properly called “absolute Tyranny” and “absolute Despotism.” The Congress and U.S. Government long ago became far more severe in government overreach, than the British, over their (then-current) American territories. 18 (Italics added). https://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/declaratory_act_1766.asp 19 Discussing “Acts of pretended (British) Legislation,” our own Declaration of Independence pointedly-chastised king and Parliament: “For suspending our own Legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with Power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever.” 20 The Confederation Congress on September 22, 1783 first proposed a permanent residence (which didn’t ever take form): “That the district which may be ceded to and accepted by Congress for their permanent residence ought to be entirely exempted from the authority of the State ceding the same...” Vol. 25, Journals of the Continental Congress, Page 603. 1783. https://tile.loc.gov/storage-services/service/ll/llscd/lljc025/lljc025.pdf 21 If and when the true fount of federal oppression finally becomes widely understood, not only will its false-extension beyond proper boundaries be summarily ended, but undoubtedly even the allowed actions within The Little Implementation Areas curtailed (because everyone will finally realize what’s really going on, and then appropriately seek to contain excessive governing action, even where and when discretion is allowed). 22 Other than in D.C., States have often expressly-reserved the power to serve legal process in the parcels they cede to Congress for exclusive-legislation purposes. 23 Delegations of authority to a local D.C. government (i.e., mayor and city council, or county commissioners, or any similar government) may be here safely ignored, since the Constitution vests the exclusive legislation power directly with Congress, and any subsequent delegation by Congress is thus always subservient. Of course, this principle doesn’t hold true for the 99% Little Powers, which require Legislative Representation, meaning in the Normal Situation, members cannot redelegate their delegated powers. 24 So, even though members of Congress nowhere have the expressly-named power to print a paper currency (i.e., for the whole Union), they may do so, in and for the District of Columbia, where they may do anything and everything, except those things expressly-prohibited. Remember, only “States” are by Article I, Section 10 expressly prohibited from printing a paper currency and calling it a legal tender and the “District” isn’t a “State.” 25 See Waging War without Congress First Declaring It, by Matt Erickson, for further explanation on delegating the war-making powers—of the District of Columbia, which isn’t a “State” now expressly-prohibited from its own war-making power, by Article I, Section 10)—over to the U.N. Security Council (and also American Presidents taking the U.S. into foreign wars never declared by Congress). 26 The Article VII ratification process, and the Tenth Amendment, reserve to the States all powers not expressly-delegated (except those the Constitution expressly-denies, in Article I, Section 10 [which are thus reserved to We The People]). However, in individual cessions of land under Art. I:8:17, the ceding State cedes all of its remaining governing authority (actually, its ability to govern), but keeps only those few things expressly-named within cession documents (and thereby specially-reserved). 27 Again, in 1846, the former lands of Virginia (Alexandria) were retroceded back to the State, as unnecessary (so only the former lands of Maryland, continue to be in the current federal District Seat). 28 Ignoring the amendments, which aren’t here relevant. 29 After reviewing a draft copy of The Case Against One Hundred And One-Percent Government, Grok AI wrote that Marshall’s 1821 tactic in Cohens v. Virginia “shifts authority from the Constitution’s fixed text to lawmakers' whims” and keenly observed that Marshall’s devious tactic “makes the exception swallow the rule.” Now, to get Grok, Claude and other AI systems to refer to the author’s work on federal overreach without first uploading his work or at least explicit mention of his name. Please note that by current design, AI systems have little or no direct memory between conversations. Therefore, to avoid having to start over each new discussion (rather than building upon prior discussions), it’s best to keep an ongoing copy of your conversations on your own computer (I’d suggest adding headings, by date or topic). Then just paste your conversation document into your current chat to continue (rather than starting afresh). 30 Harsh accusations, for sure, but this book lays out the compelling evidence how the two men waged a silent legal war to undermine every fundamental precept of American government and establish in its place, an arbitrary reign, under absolute rule and even greater secrecy. This is as subversive as things get. “Strategically manipulative” was Grok’s recommended phrasing, over the author’s original use of “evil.” 31 See Chapter 25 for a simple amendment proposal to remedy the unintentional conflict created by holding the strictest letter of the Constitution against its spirit, regarding Clause 17, as viewed from the perspective of the Supremacy Clause of Article VI, Clause 2 (the Framers likely couldn’t have imagined anyone so loathsome as to even devise such a strategy, let alone exploit it). 32 For deeper dives into the banks of the United States, national banking associations, and Federal Reserve System, the devious conversion from gold and silver coin to paper currency and so-called gold “confiscation,” please see Matt Erickson’s books, Monetary Laws of the United States, Dollars and nonCents, Understanding Federal Tyranny, and The Patriot Quest to Restore Our American Republic (and the fiction Bald Justice trilogy novels and Fighting Back Against The Decree of ’33). Regarding the Civil War, please realize that neither the North nor South wanted to fire the first offensive shot, but the South viewed that they “defensively” fired upon Fort Sumter—an exclusive legislation U.S. military fort South Carolina had ceded to Congress and the U.S. Government by the 1830s. Though South Carolina viewed the fort as their own, they couldn’t own/govern what they had decades earlier ceded to Congress and the U.S. Government. As the original trustor, they would certainly have a claim, but after cession and secession, they should have sought negotiation and resolution via treaty. Their plan for war (and thus seeking a treaty of oppositional concession or surrender) didn’t pan out for them. For deeper investigation into “our” undeclared wars, please see Waging War without Congress First Declaring It. 33 See James Madison’s Notes on the Convention of 1787. https://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/debates_618.asp 34 Ibid. 35 Ibid. 36 Ibid. 37 Ibid. 38 Ibid. 39 James Madison actually introduced at the convention, what eventually became Article I, Section 8, Clause 17, when he introduced 20 prospective clauses, on August 18th. https://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/debates_818.asp 40 Article II, Section 2, Clause 1: “The President…may require the Opinion, in writing, of the principal Officer in each of the executive Departments, upon any Subject relating to the Duties of their respective Offices.” 41 https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Jefferson/01-19-02-0051 https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Washington/05-07-02-0200-0002 42 https://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/bank-ah.asp 43 Ibid. 44 Ibid. Italics added. 45 https://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/bank-ah.asp 46 Founders.Archive.gov shows that from January 1, 2022 until his death on July 4, 1826—the 50th anniversary of the Declaration of Independence—Thomas Jefferson wrote at least 1,571 letters. https://founders.archives.gov/?df=1822-01-01&q=%2520Author%253A%2522Jefferson%252C%2520Thomas%2522%2520Period%253A%2522post-Madison%2520Presidency%2522&s=1111211111&r=1 47 https://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/bank-ah.asp 48 https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Hamilton/01-04-02-0247 49 The next President wasn’t chosen by that Electoral count—for while both Democratic-Republican Thomas Jefferson and his running mate Aaron Burr each got a majority of votes—each of them also had an equal number of votes, which thus threw the election to the House of Representatives, to sort out (which is an interesting story, all on its own). 50 https://supreme.justia.com/supreme-court-history/marshall-court/ 51 II Stat. 89. February 13, 1801. 52 Marbury v. Madison, Volume 5, United States Reports, Page 137 (abbrev. 5 U.S. 137 @ 154) 1803. Italics and underscore added. See also: 2 Stat. 103. Section 11. February 27, 1801. The February 27, 1801 Act was named “An act concerning the District of Columbia,” which is found in Marshall’s cited words here italicized: “His right originates in an act of Congress passed in February, 1801, concerning the District of Columbia.” Compare with 2 Stat. 89 @ 92. Section 11.  February 13, 1801. 53 https://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/bank-ah.asp 54 McCulloch v. Maryland, 17 U.S. 316 @ 413, 414. 1819. 55 Ibid., Pg. 421. 56 Ibid., Pg. 416, 417. Italics added. 57 I Stat. 112 @ 116. Section 16. 1790. April 30. Italics added. 58 Ibid., @ 113. Section 6. Italics added. 59 The Legal Tender Cases, 79 U.S. 457 @ 535 – 536, 545, and 536, respectively. 1871. 60 1819 McCulloch v. Maryland examined again the constitutionality of the second bank of the United States. The 1871 Legal Tender Cases was the first Supreme Court case to rule in favor of the constitutionality of the first legal tender paper currencies (first enacted in 1862). For deeper discussion on the criminal jurisdiction of the United States, especially relating to expanding federal overreach by similar means, please see Matt Erickson’s 2012 book Monetary Laws of the United States, in Chapter 11. 61 McCulloch v. Maryland, 17 U. S. 316 @ 424. 1819 62 Cohens v. Virginia, 19 U.S. 264 @ 383. 1821. While primary discussion of Marbury is found here in Ch. 22, also please see further discussion in Ch. 24, on the Once and For All Amendment. 63 Ibid., @ 422, 423. Italics added. 64 Ibid., @ 444. Italics added. 65 Ibid., @ 429. Italics added. 66 Ibid., @ 428-429. Italics and bold emphasis added. 67 Lane County v. Oregon, 74 U.S. 71 @ 75, (1868); Bronson v. Rodes, 74 U.S. 229 @ 254, (1869); and especially Hepburn v. Griswold, 75 U.S. 603 @ 625, (1870). 68 https://www.senate.gov/legislative/MeasuresProposedToAmendTheConstitution.htm 69 By the way, the most important wall America needs to build, by far, is “The Wall to Fence-In D.C.”—where we face a far graver danger than from outside sources. Tragically, our greatest source of damage has always been internally inflicted—it’s not others doing what’s right, it’s what we’re doing wrong. Illegal immigration—whether because of “entitlements,” invalid voting or other perceived threat—all hinge as grave danger because we haven’t yet stopped the false extension of exclusive legislation powers beyond allowable boundaries. Confine the exclusive powers to D.C. and the false lure of Anything-Goes Government summarily ends and elections will no longer offer the Grand Prize we currently foolishly allow. 70 Cohens v. Virginia, 19 U.S. 264 @ 424 (1821). Italics added. 71 Ibid., @ 429. Italics added. 72 Ibid., @ 424 - 425. Italics added. 73 Ex parte Randolph, 20 F. Cas. 242, 254 (No. 11, 558) (CC Va. 1833). Italics added. 74 The Legal Tender Cases, 79 U.S. 457 @ 531, 1871. Italics added. 75 If extradition is to be yet allowed on exclusive legislation matters, then it would need to be expressly named within the proposed amendment (as an exception)—otherwise the currently-worded amendment would prevent it (on exclusive legislation matters). 76 To learn about our devious conversion from gold and silver coin to paper currency, please see Matt Erickson’s seven public domain books on the topic (earlier footnoted). 77 The Legal Tender Cases, 79 U. S. 457 @ 537. 1871. Italics added. 78 Please note that the so-called federal “public lands” wouldn’t be affected by repeal of Clause 17, because the States never ceded their reserved powers over these vast lands in the western States. 79 The 23rd Amendment currently gives D.C. residents a vote in Presidential elections, as “if” D.C. “were a State” (not exceeding the number of Electors of the least-populated State). 80 The Article IV, Section 3, Clause 2 territorial powers of Congress never reach to the level of exclusive legislation matters, so this clause can’t ever deny American territories legislative representation (even as some differences with States exist [and if those minor differences got exploited next, then we’d address them, next]). 81 See Lesson 30 of Learn The Constitution And ROAR on the failings of congressional term limits and a Balanced Budget Amendment. 82 https://archive.org/details/jurisdiction-over-federal-areas-within-the-states-part-1_202105/page/23/mode/2up. Page 24. The “vexing” nature of exclusive-legislation parcels (outside of D.C.), is the utter lack of local governing structure normally offered by State and local government, especially such as education, police, courts, civil dispute resolution, local criminal prosecution, marriage licenses, divorces, births, deaths, inheritance, contracts, etc. 83 Ibid., Page 47. 84 Ibid., Pages 84 - 85. 85 If dividing up States is sought, it should perhaps be done everywhere (i.e., the liberal western-half of Washington State to remain, but an eastern-half allowed to form its own [conservative] State). --------------- ------------------------------------------------------------ --------------- ------------------------------------------------------------ 2 2 2 Introduction to Section 1 2 2 Chapter 19. The Bank of the United States 2 2 Chapter 24. Going Forward, Without An Amendment 2 Chapter 26. The Happily-Ever-After Amendment 2 Chapter 27. The Best Path Forward? 2 2