The Constitution Hoax
by Victor Gerhard
The average person knows nothing about the U.S. Constitution. A small number of half-educated people thinks they know something but in fact were taught the opposite of the truth. The very best informed people know the truth about the Constitution, but almost all of these do everything they can to hide it. Only the tiniest handful of people both knows the truth about the Constitution and will actually try to spread it. Out of that handful not one person is ready to fully face the consequences of that truth.
So let's get down to the good stuff. There is no Bill of Rights. The Constitution does not give you a right of free speech, a right to own a gun, a right to privacy, or any other right, there being in fact no Constitutional rights whatsoever. There is no Federal Government. The Constitution is a fatally flawed document that was first violated by the Central government soon after its enactment. The flaws in the Constitution and the evil acts of men created a Central government that is the exact opposite of what was intended by the drafters. Under the true Constitution the Central government is not supreme over the State governments. Today the only affects of the Constitution on our lives are for the bad. We would be far freer, today, if the Constitution and especially the first ten amendments had never been written. The Central government's version of the Constitution is a chain around our necks that will be used to choke us to death unless we throw it off. Oh, and the First Amendment was actually intended to be the Third.
Lies about the Constitution are so deeply planted in people's minds that even when they think they are arguing for freedom, they are actually affirming their slavery. In my opinion, the Constitution Hoax far surpasses the Holocaust Hoax in its danger to White people. Feel free to pull out a copy and follow along.
The Constitution is a very simple document. Article I establishes the legislature, and in Section 8 lists its powers. Article II establishes the executive branch and in Section 2 and 3 lists its powers. Article III establishes the judiciary and in section 2 lists its powers. That is a simplification, but it covers the basics.
The key to understanding the entire Constitution lies in this fact: The powers of the Central government are listed in the Constitution. If a power is not listed the Central government has NO authority to exercise such power. This is clear from the plain language of the Constitution. It is also clear from the legislative history and the words of every person involved with the Constitution in any way, as drafter or as voter for ratification, and from a reading of the Federalist and Anti-Federalist Papers. How could it be made even clearer? Read the 10th Amendment: Powers not specifically delegated to the United States [Central government] by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people. Everything that is not given is reserved, said framer James Wilson.
Further, the RIGHTS of the people and the States are NOT listed in the Constitution, and unless they are specifically prohibited from doing an act by the Constitution itself (such as in Article I, Section 10), they are free to do it. This is clear from the plain language of the Constitution. It is also clear from the legislative history and the words of every person involved with the Constitution in any way, as drafter or as voter for ratification, and from a reading of the Federalist and Anti-Federalist Papers. How could it be made even clearer? Read the 9th Amendment: The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people. Just because an individual right is listed in the Constitution does not mean there are not infinite other rights retained by the people, NOR does it make those listed rights somehow superior to those not listed, NOR does it limit those listed rights to only the extent of the Amendment. Plain English, not Yiddish - no Bill of Rights.
You have freedom of speech NOT because of the First Amendment, which is routinely bent and twisted like a hot pretzel, but because the Central government was granted no authority to prevent your speech. According to the Constitution no lame little one-sentence ink splotch protects my speech. I can say whatever I want because the Central government was not granted any authority in the Constitution to stop me. I can own a gun because the Constitution does not give the Central government the authority to prevent me. The same goes for my right to do absolutely ANYTHING.
My rights are not limited to what is fraudulently called The Bill of Rights; in fact, it is the Central government's authority that is limited to only what is listed in the Constitution. And a close reading of the Constitution turns up NO instance where the Central government can interfere with the life of an individual citizen in any way. How can it be a Bill of Rights when it doesn't list one-millionth of the acts I am able to do? How can it be a Bill of Rights when within that very list is an Amendment, the 9th, which states absolutely that there is no such list of our rights in the Constitution? And just saying a right to free speech makes it sound like its something our wonderful government is giving us and for which we should be so grateful, just like the Twin-Towers weepers tell us. We had freedom because We The People placed crushing, specific limits on the power of the Central government. We lost our freedom because the Central government, unchecked, unconstitutionally exceeded those limits and took our freedoms.
We are led to believe, conditioned by decades of lies, that the Central government can do anything, except what is prohibited to it in the so-called Bill of Rights. And yet, as Edgar Steele recently pointed out in an article on VNN, the rights listed therein have been so whittled down that virtually nothing is left! Oh, sweet freedom - yes, that's why those Arabs attacked. (Even in the most fundamentalist Islamic country aren't you in truth freer to say what you want, raise your children as you see fit, socialize with who you want, protect yourself from harm, keep the property you've earned, and generally subject to less government observation and regulation than in America? Actually, aren't we attacking them because of THEIR freedom?)
We have been brainwashed into thinking that the Central government's powers are infinite, while our rights are limited to those enshrined in the first ten amendments. The Central government's field of power stretches to infinity but somewhere on that field is a tiny circle, whose extent is defined by the Central government itself (from behind its disguise of 9 black robes), wherein lay our precious rights, or so goes the mental programming. In fact, to the horror of the people who know, our FREEDOM is an infinite field, wherein lies a circle, whose extent is defined by the People in the Constitution, that describes and circumscribes the authority of the Central government.
In addition, these facts about the Constitution were once widely known and taught in just this manner. Power not granted to the Central government is retained by the States and the People - this lesson can be found in old high-school textbooks. Alexis de Tocqueville commented on this principle he easily discerned from reading the Constitution.
What gives you the right? sneers the Government. What gives you the authority?!!! we must scream back.
Although this enormous deception still could have been prevented, the very listing of individual rights in the Constitution, despite the crystal clear denials in the 9th and 10th Amendments that these constituted all your rights, contributed to this huge fraud. The potential for this type of switcheroo was the very reason the 9th and 10th Amendments were added to the Constitution. Despite those two Amendments, numerous people were still afraid that the Central government would proceed to do exactly what it did. However, others felt that by listing these rights, they would make super-extra-certain that the Central government would never infringe on these rights. Still, the anti-Amendment forces managed to add yet one more thing - a paragraph of the Constitution you almost certainly don't even know exists.
Black's Law Dictionary is considered to be the definitive legal dictionary, and no law student or law library is without one; its definitions are cited in legal briefs and opinions without question. In the back of Black's is a copy of the Constitution -- however, it's missing a paragraph. The Oxford Companion to the Supreme Court is also a highly respected source, claiming to supply everything one would want to know about the Supreme Court. It of course contains a copy of the Constitution -- but missing a paragraph.
This paragraph was affirmed by John Adams, then Vice President, and of course by Frederick Augustus Muhlenberg, Speaker of the House of Representatives. It is the core of the preamble to the first ten amendments to the Constitution, which are therein called Amendments, not The Bill of Rights. What, you never knew they had a preamble? No big surprise, once you hear it. Ok, without further ado, here's the first paragraph preceding the Amendments:
The Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best ensure the beneficent ends of its institution. (Complete Constitution as provided by the Cato Institute.)
So there were further restrictive clauses (the Amendments) added in order to prevent an abuse of power by the Central government (that ended up happening anyway) and to reassure the public as to the limited powers of the Central government but it was not a list of all of our rights.
So where does that leave all the acts and inventions of the Central government not mentioned in the Constitution -- Social Security, Welfare, the Federal Reserve, housing programs, disability programs, agricultural programs, drug prohibition, waging war without a declaration therefore; the endless procession of benefits, rules, laws and decrees? -- all unconstitutional. Clearly, about 95% of what the Central government does is unconstitutional. If the power/authority to act is not given to the Central government, it cannot act within the authority of the Constitution, and any such acts are illegitimate, illegal usurpations of power. Yes, the Federal Government is illegal.
Guess what else is not listed in the Constitution?: The most destructive Central government power of all; the power of the Supreme Court to review the laws and acts of States for constitutionality. In Article III, Section 2, there is no mention of the power of the Court to review cases and controversies between two citizens of the same state, or between a State and a citizen of that State. Yet these have been the parties to almost all of the destructive cases in the past 50 years: Brown v. Board of Education; Miranda; and Roe v. Wade; and on and on. Further, regardless of parties, there is no mention of the power to declare Central government laws or State laws unconstitutional whatsoever! The Supreme Court was granted no such power. So where did it come from? Well, in 1803, there was a case, Marbury v. Madison, wherein the Supreme Court (the Central government) declared that it now had such power.
Also, the Central government now uses the Incorporation Doctrine, another homemade remedy, which declares that the 14th Amendment allows the Supreme Court to enforce the Bill of Rights against the States. Thus, the Court acts in cases in which it does not have the authority to intervene, using a self-declared right of Judicial Review, a twisted lie called the Bill of Rights, and a 14th Amendment which mentions no such Incorporation Doctrine. Now think about how we're treated if we step out of line (literally) at the Airport. Funny how We The People, that other party to the Constitution, can't gin up our own rights too.
The Supreme Court also frequently uses the 14th Amendment because it contains two phrases vague enough on their face to allow all sorts of mischief - due process and equal protection. The legislative history regarding these phrases made it fairly clear that they were intended merely to enfranchise former slaves with equality under the law in all States. There is no backing for the Court's use of these phrases to deconstruct America as a nation and society. Of course, the Court waited for about 100 years (1860s to 1960s) before it felt it could get away with the really extreme abuses of these phrases. (I once took a law class that did nothing but spend an entire semester examining the uses of just those two phrases.) It then suddenly discovered the immense power in these phrases and began ripping our country apart at the roots.
Post-World War II, through the constant discovery of doctrines, emanations and penumbras, the Supreme Court has twisted the meaning of the Constitution to fit the Liberal/Marxist/Jewish agenda, all in defiance of the clear meaning and legislative history of the Constitution. Thus, the Central government has the ability to declare the extent of its own power and control all means of enforcement. Dictator: A ruler with absolute authority and supreme governmental jurisdiction - New Riverside Dictionary.
To the delight of the Left, even the Far Right poses its loss of freedom in terms of violations of the First Amendment or Second Amendment. As the Leftist Establishment completely controls the meaning of those Amendments, said Amendments will never free us, but will in fact be used to enslave us. Since we are admitting that ALL our rights to free speech are contained in the First Amendment, when the Supreme Court declares that the Amendment does not cover hate speech we have no recourse except, I guess, to shut up. What you recognize as the legitimate law is interpreted by what you recognize as the legitimate legal authority. Game over, you lose.
So, what is Federalism? The much ballyhooed separation of powers of the Central government into three branches ranks far behind in importance to the separation between Central and State power. This division of power (probably more correctly called authority) between Central and State governments is what is called Federalism. Thus the Central AND State governments are together federal governments. Remember, the division is that the Central government has only those powers granted by the Constitution, and the States and People have all other power whatsoever. Note how you know about the vaunted separation of branches of the Central Government, but are uninformed as to the details of the far more important Central vs. State separation.
We hear so much about the separation of powers between Central government branches and how it performs such wonders to preserve our liberty. And in fact, the original idea was that the branches would be at odds with each other and oppose any one branch gaining too much power, thereby preserving the liberty of the States and People. Of course, the opposite has happened. The Supreme Court almost never rules a Central government law unconstitutional or improper. The legislative and executive branches are urged to cooperate to prevent gridlock. In fact the three branches work closely together to constantly increase the illegitimate power of the Central government at the expense of the States and People. Was there ever a more unconstitutional set of laws than those passed after the 9/11 incident? Will they be declared improper or unconstitutional? No, at most the Court will fiddle with the provisions, but let them stand as a whole. (Thus the wonderful separation of powers, yet one more reason those Arabs hate us.)
Power is the ability to control other people. Power is a zero-sum equation; that is, in order for a party to gain power, another party must lose power. When you hear about all the power suddenly acquired by the Central government (or NATO, the UN, the IMF, the World Bank, and so on), you must realize that some party correspondingly lost power - and that party is you. If the Central government usurps power in violation of the Constitution, it takes it directly from you; despite the propaganda, it does not create new powers, it can only steal existing ones from other parties.
Also note what you have been told about the Supremacy Clause (Article VI, section 2), which you have been falsely led to believe says the Central government is supreme over the States. This is what the Supremacy Clause really says: This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.
The Central government is not supreme over the State governments; however, laws made by the Central government WITHIN the authority granted to it under the Constitution shall be supreme over contrary State laws. Again, the same principle, the Central government can only act under the powers granted it by the Constitution. If the Central government laws are not pursuant to this Constitutionally granted power, they are not supreme over State laws, are obviously illegitimate, and have no authority. And, where the Central government is not granted power, the State laws are supreme, as no Central government laws can even be legitimately passed.
The Constitution, which confines and limits the Central government to very specific powers, is the supreme law of the land. The Supremacy Clause means the opposite of what you were taught, in that it is a restriction on the actions of the Central government, not an empowerment of those actions.
When did this twisting of the Constitution begin? Almost from the very start Marbury v. Madison, as stated, was decided in 1803. Another early unconstitutional act was President Thomas Jefferson's purchase of the Louisiana Territory. No authority to purchase land was granted. The Constitution could have been amended, but everyone though it was such a swell idea they didn't bother.
The actions of President Lincoln were further violations of the Constitution, and also serve to show very clearly the flaws in the Constitution. Lincoln suspended Writs of Habeas Corpus without authority, among many other unconstitutional acts. He was even planning to throw the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court in jail for certain of his public remarks, (Oh, thou Great Emancipator, whose legacy must Arab nations worship or die). But it was in preventing the secession of States that Lincoln did the most damage to the Republic. At the original Constitutional Convention, several States, including New York State, refused to ratify the Constitution except with the proviso that they had the right to secede if they so chose. Without much thought they were given that right, it apparently being taken for granted that States could secede.
In addition, just before the Civil War (a.k.a., the War of Northern Business Interest Aggression), several New England States in an uproar over slavery (since they could no longer make money off the now-banned slave trade) seriously considered seceding from the Union themselves!
The problem created by the Northern victory was that if States could not secede from the Union what could they do when the Central government unconstitutionally usurped power? Nothing, and thus died the American Republic. That is the great flaw of the Constitution; it does not address specific remedies of the States and the People against unconstitutional power grabs by the Central government. It sure says the Central government can't do so, but there is no enforcement mechanism. Of course many of the drafters were unable to imagine the Central government getting so powerful. And they also assumed that Revolution was always an option against a tyrannical government. But if you pass a law against stealing but don't create any penalty for stealing and don't create a police force to catch thieves, you are merely relying on the law-abiding nature of people when many people have no such nature. The Constitution lacks an enforcement mechanism, and so we can legally only stand by and watch as our freedom disappears.
FDR and Lyndon Johnson, among many others, took warping and violating the Constitution to new heights.
(However, many of the first uses of illegitimate Central-government powers were in support of big business interests in the late 1800s, against State pro-labor laws and the like.)
People like to say how shocked Thomas Jefferson would be with our present Central government. Wrong. He wouldnt be shocked at all - he was completely aware of the tendency of governments to usurp power and become tyrannical. He would be shocked at our inaction in the face of such tyranny, having devoted his life to ensuring the ability of the citizens of the new nation to recognize and oppose tyranny. Waco, Afghanistan, the Patriot Act -- perfectly understandable; Couch potatoes and Soccer Moms - no.
Of course, everything I have written falls under the evil umbrella of Original Intent. Nothing can end your political career faster than suggesting that the Constitution be read as it was written. Now you can see the incredible threat an honest reading of the Constitution holds to those in power. That is why they invented the Living Constitution; a document that changes its meaning to match the interests of the current political ruling class. A Living Constitution is an absurd idea, with no basis in law or Western Civilization whatsoever. The first rule in reading a statute, and the Constitution is a statute, is that the plain meaning of the statute is the first and true meaning. Only if the plain meaning is unclear, and the Constitution is not unclear, do you go on to a second examination - the legislative history. The legislative history of the Constitution is also crystal clear. And even if it was not, the usual further tests of meaning still support the enforcement of the meaning of the Constitution as outlined above.
Thus, the evil Living Constitution, which can be reinterpreted to enslave us. Have you ever heard of another document that was Alive? Suppose you sold your car, and the person you sold it to declared the contract was Alive, and that it now said that the price of the car was not 5000 dollars, but that it was free. You would immediately grasp the criminal use of Living documents. 'Original Intent' is used as a smear, like 'racism' -- a convenient code for attacking a belief that is normal, correct and traditional in Western Society: what a document means is the same as what is written in it; how obvious -- yet who knows what evil lurks in the heart of non-Western man?
It's a scam and a hoax, and you can see why those people in the know don't want you to know. They want you to keep insisting on your First Amendment Rights, because that legitimizes their re-engineered, power-stealing Constitution.
And what about the handful of people trying to spread the truth? Two good examples are two men that I lifted much of this information from Joe Sobran and Robert Bork.
Bork, in his writings and particularly his book The Tempting of America does examine the scam of fraudulent doctrines and the Living Constitution, and says that original intent is the only true interpretation of the Constitution. However, Bork also says that our system is too far gone and too dependent on Big Government to go back to the absolute original intent of only delegated powers. Thus, all his support for original intent still is argued within a framework that does not as much question the authority of the Supreme Court to make certain rulings as it questions just the substance of the rulings themselves.
Sobran has done more than anyone to keep alive the flame of the original Constitution. When once asked point blank what should be done about our current situation in the midst of these usurpations of power, Sobran was at a loss. That's understandable, because really, White revolution is the only solution, and such revolution could entail a long, bloody struggle. Sobran in no way lacks the courage to face facts, his whole career has been one of sacrificing money and power to principle; he really is just too nice a person to propose or even contemplate what his several decades of examining the Constitution and the Jewish Problem make self-evident for others.
The problem is, if our Government is this corrupt then there is no reforming it. The men in power are the problem, and they have to go. What gave us our freedom was not the Constitution but ourselves. When we stopped opposing government usurpations and instead greedily accepted its many handouts, we lost our freedom. Remember, almost every nation on earth has a written constitution, and almost every government on earth ignores their constitution. The lesson to be learned it that the people in power are what matters, not a written guarantee of rights that is always and everywhere ignored, or skewed to favor those in power. We must have White Nationalists in power or we will never be free, regardless of words written on a piece of paper. In addition, even original intent would not allow the eviction of those whom the 14th Amendment made citizens; yet that eviction is precisely what we must achieve.
The only use of our Constitution today is to legitimize and expand the powers of the Central Government. Amazingly, as much as it violates the Constitution, the legitimacy of our Government rests on nothing else but the Constitution! If the Government openly declared the Constitution void, which in practice it is, the Government would lose its legitimacy - what else gives it the right to push us around?
And today, in the guise of expanding our rights, the Government uses bizarre interpretations of the Constitution to seize more and more power from us while claiming to be awarding gay rights, religious rights, children's rights, disabled rights, minority rights all supposedly to be found in the Constitution, and all of which are a flimsy cover for an immense and on-going Government power grab.
We have the worst of both worlds -- our freedoms are not protected by the Constitution, and in fact the Constitution is used to further enslave us. The Central government has violated almost every word of the Constitution that would limit its power, yet we must still obey its every dictate. Exactly how we now benefit from the Constitution is unclear to me. Some like to say the First and Second Amendments still protect us, but I believe these have nothing to do with the law.
We still have free speech because during the '50s, '60s and '70s liberals used that term to validate all their assaults on our society - communism, protests, pornography, the take-over of our institutions and so on. They were so extreme in their interpretation of the First Amendment that though they are now in power, it is difficult to make the necessary 180-degree turn. But they will -- hey, it's not free speech, its hate speech.
We have our gun rights versus the Central government for one reason, we own a lot of guns. If they could get away with it they would take them all, but at the moment they can't get away with it. Again, it's just a matter of time as their propaganda goes to work and they put together the necessary mechanisms to take our guns. According to the Living Constitution, we have no right to private gun ownership, so the Second Amendment is not protecting us in the least; we are protecting our gun rights, with guns.
This brings up my final point. Regardless of the Constitution, the Government has always taken every bit of power it was able to take. Only determined resistance by the people on rare occasions, not constitutional arguments, stopped the Government. The Constitution as a protector of our liberty is dead. There is no conceivable chance of reviving it. As the Government has destroyed the Constitution, which was its only claim to legitimacy, it no longer has legitimate authority over us. Of course, it most certainly still has the power to coerce us, so how does that matter? It matters in that we can stop wasting our time making Bill-of-Rights arguments to judges and bureaucrats who have to control themselves to stop from laughing. Our efforts should go into building the ability to offer real resistance to the Central Government, as power is the only language it understands.
There are many other Constitutional issues that this discussion brings up, such as our freedom vis-a-vis the States, but they can wait for another day. Except that Congress transmitted 12 Amendments to the States, the first two of which, having to do with Congressional representation and Congressional pay, were not then adopted. However, the Amendment concerning Congressional Pay was finally ratified on May 7, 1992, thereby becoming the 27th Amendment instead of the Second.
Imagine White Victory.
Joseph Sobran, Sobran's newsletter, P.O. Box 1383, Vienna, VA 22183
Solimine and Walker, Respecting State Courts: The Inevitability of Judicial Federalism
Robert Bork, The Tempting of America
Sheldon Nahmod, Civil Right and Civil Liberties Litigation, The Law of Section 1983
Charles Alan Wright, Law of Federal Courts