Articles 2-4 of the United States Constitution

TRANSCRIPT

Generated using A.I.; please forgive any mistakes.

Dear Heavenly Father, give thanks that we're able to gather together from different states to show our appreciation for being born in America, being born at this time for such a time as this, and that we have tools at our disposal that we can reaffirm those freedoms that have come from thee. that do not come from our government and that we can gather together to let our government know that we are asserting our authority and we are going to let them know that their laws are not accepted by us that we reject those things that infringe upon those rights that have been given to us we love thee father and we ask thee to also embolden us that as we go about sharing this message with others, that we will find others who will join the cause that will benefit them and us as Americans and as thy children. And we ask for these things and give thanks in the name of thy son, Jesus Christ. Amen.

Tonight we'll be covering two through four. So articles two, three, and four. And then next week we'll be covering five, six, and seven. So that way we can make sure that we are covering it at a pace that is absorbable. But feel free if you've got questions that you'd like to clarify as we go along, or we can keep it to the end as well. But of course, we want to make sure that we're doing this so that we can build our knowledge so that we are not susceptible to the destruction caused by ignorance. Because everything that we do, of course, is to build our understanding and the understanding of others of and adherence to the principles that have built free nations to expose the satanic conspiracy and then to build an effective resistance to that conspiracy. So please keep that in mind as kind of the the angle, everything that we're doing at in trainings. So articles two and three, we have covered, of course, the delegated authority. of the executive and the judiciary.

And so as I covered last week, each branch of government is designed to have only specific delegated authority. And if that specific, not only if government as a whole isn't granted a specific authority, they can't do it. A branch that is not given authority cannot do that thing. And they cannot abdicate their authority to another branch because that authority to abdicate their authority is not given in the Constitution either. Therefore, we know that if the judiciary writes a law, they are violating the Constitution. If the executive writes a law, they are violating the Constitution. If the judiciary executes a law, they are violating the Constitution. If the, you know, just any way you look at it, if one of the branches is doing the job of another branch, it's violating the Constitution and their authority is a pretend legislation, right? So let's see. Yeah, Mark, go ahead.

Yes, I frequently hear from these politicians, especially these Sunday pundits shows, that they've transferred a particular power to the president. So from what you're saying, there is absolutely no authority for one branch to transfer one of their delegated powers to another branch of the federal government, correct? Right. Exactly. Yep. So they're subversive, these politicians, to say that. Absolutely. Rod, yeah. Yeah, I mean, the reason for that is that they separated them for a purpose, right? So if they could just turn around and consolidate it again later. then it didn't serve any purpose to divide it up in the first place, right? Yeah, why do it? Exactly. So we go to Article 2, Clause 1. There's the powers delegated. The president is given executive power, which means to execute laws passed by Congress in compliance with Article 1, Section 8, which is their delegated authority. So Congress passes the law. The president executes the law. They enforces the law. puts it into operation. The vice president is made the president of the Senate. So that's his job in the Article 2 of the Constitution. And the reason for this is we have checks and balances where all three powers are jealous of their authority. And for this to work, They must be jealous of their authority and guard it from the others so that it can't be stolen because the founding fathers were very much concerned with the history of power being concentrated into one person's hands. In fact, they called that the very definition of tyranny. And so they wanted to divide this power into different hands so that one person couldn't control it all. Mark.

Yes, I want to go back to that first provision, the executive powers shall be vested in the president of the United States. One of the disinformation tactics I hear constantly being used by the establishment is, and I hear conservatives do that all the time, it's the bureaucrats in the federal government that are out of control. It's the bureaucrats that are doing this and we can't do anything about it sort of statements. That provision says that's absolutely not true. All best executive branch powers are invested in the president. So the bureaucrats can't do anything unless the president allows it for it to occur. He can fire anybody he wants at any time he cares to. There's no civil service law from the Congress oversees the Constitution. So they're all null and void if they try to declare, you can't punish us or remove us from government because of that first provision. Any thoughts on what I said? Well, not only that, not only can they fire anybody, but the president, that's what executive orders are for, is to direct the executive branch offices, the different departments, on what they're allowed to do, what they're supposed to do. And so everything, you know, all of these departments people complain about, they are the fault lies with the executive branch, the president, because it's his job to. direct each of those offices and to tell them what to do, what not to do, and to fire them if they refuse to comply. And if any branch violates, any department violates the Constitution, it is Congress's responsibility to punish the president, meaning impeach him, remove him from office. Exactly. So now we go to article one section.

Let's see here. Before I do that, I guess I've got another comment or question. Rod again. Yeah. I was just going to mention a comment on what Mark just said, because that illustrates the reason why it's such a threat that you have so many members of the CFR and things like that in Congress. Right. Because they have a job they're supposed to do that they owe allegiance to the Constitution and the separation of powers. But when they're being propagandized in their CFR meetings and stuff, Trilateral Commission, all that, that there needs to be this new world order and we've got to consolidate all the power and all this kind of stuff. That's why that is such a huge problem, because they're they're all on the same page about that stuff, which means when they go back to their offices. They're not going to do the things that are outlined in the Constitution, and they're all working together behind the scenes to eradicate, basically, the Constitution. Exactly. Yep. Bingo. Thank you.

So this Article 1, Section 7, Clause 3, is to keep them accountable, right? Because all legislation passed by Congress, they don't automatically become law. The president has 10 days, excluding Sundays, to veto the bill. meaning Congress passed a law, he vetoes it, it's not law. And then, but if he doesn't, right, he can sign it. I'm sorry, he can sign it or he can ignore it and it becomes law. So if he signs it, then it automatically goes in, the wheels are in motion to implement it or after the 10 days, then it automatically is as if he had signed it. And so, Every level of government is designed as a check and a balance, meaning it's a way to nullify what another branch is doing to ensure that it doesn't go beyond its authority. But Congress, again, even if it vetoes, if Congress says, no, we want to do it, then it would take two-thirds of the Congress to override the president's veto. That way, if it's really something that's really important, everybody just wants it, and the president is just being insane, then if there's that much support for it, then they can get both houses of Congress, two-thirds of them, the House and the Senate, to override the veto, and it becomes law. Let's see here. Mark, yeah. Yes, of course, there's a huge caveat here, and you've referenced it. If the law they pass doesn't need to be vetoed. It's not law if it's unconstitutional. It is null and void, Jefferson, Madison, and so many of them told us. Jefferson called it non -existent law. So we always need to keep, it's not, the way you said it originally, you would think that was the only way that a law passed, or a bill passed by Congress is not law, is if it's vetoed.

No, it's not law if... It's unconstitutional. It's not void. And that's why you have the executive, right? So even if they overcome his veto, then the president can actually just not implement it. It's up to him to implement it. And so if he directs his, and states have done this before, like with sodomite marriage, you had the governors of different states. directing the attorney general not to defend their state's law. And so that, and so it didn't, you know, wasn't implemented in the state and lawsuits weren't defended. And so they, you know, and so they lost by default. And so, you know, not that I, well, I don't think government should be in marriage. So, but I'm not in support of Sotomayor marriage, obviously, but at the same time, I don't think government should be in marriage. But a state, right, the executive branch, if it doesn't enforce or it doesn't execute the law, that's another way to nullify as well. So they have all these different checks to being able to nullify illegal laws. Mark?

Yes, and there's plenty of history of this in the early years of our government. One example was not only over Congress, but... president over a constitutional measure by the U.S. Supreme Court. And they ruled something that the president was doing was illegal. And I'm talking about President Jackson, a cousin of mine. And he said to him now, he said to the, he named the Supreme Court justice. I think it was Marshall. He said, now let's see you go ahead and enforce your ruling. Because virtually every ruling by the Supreme Court has to be carried out by the executive branch. So he nullified that ruling in the Supreme Court. Yep. And then if he's not executing a law that the legislature wants him to execute, then what can the legislature do? They can veto him. We'll get to that in a minute. And so there is so many different checks and balances back and forth that the only way to have tyranny is because the Each level of governments working together to make it happen is kind of the point of that. And so there are lots of different ways that we can ensure that we don't have tyranny. And we'll get into some of these other examples in a minute. Well, just going back to this one, right? So right now with like Obamacare, where you have a Republican president, all he would have to do is direct his office to shut down Obamacare. They could he could shut down the Web site. He could ensure that it's you know, that all of the agencies that are in charge of implementing it don't implement it. So if if a concern, you know, if we really had a conservative president, there are tons of things that he could do to nullify unconstitutional laws passed by previous Congresses. Whoops. Yes, Mark. Yes. What's important to know, not only is he not taking any of those. efforts, negative efforts to stop it. He has taken an active effort to pass it. He puts it in every year. He puts it in his budget.

And so it really is not honest to call it Obamacare longer. It should be currently called Trumpcare. Trumpcare, yeah. Because it's the socialist medicine act of whoever is currently Congress and president. Absolutely. Okay. So Article 2, Section 1, Clause 5, the president is elected, right? Clause 5, only citizens born, in the union can be president. And that's one of the reasons why this birthright citizenship thing is such a big deal, because this is a perfect way as a Trojan horse to get foreign nationals to have children here. And now you have basically the children of spies able to grow up and become president is one of the issues we have that there is with that. Also, the president has to be at least 35. Now, today you'd say, well, that's ageist, right? If we want a 25 year old to be president, then we should be allowed to have that. But the founding fathers understood that this was something that was an important caveat to be in there. Why did you have to be a natural born citizen and 35 years old? You have one of George Mason, who is one of the signers. of the constitution and at the debate to ratify it. He says, my political opinions at the age of 21 were too crude and erroneous to merit an influence on public measures. So understanding that through experience, right? No matter how much knowledge you can consume without experience, that knowledge really doesn't equate to much. It's the experience with knowledge that leads to wisdom.

And so it's important to have those two together if you're going to be somebody that is entrusted with the execution of the laws. And so it wasn't like it was just a bunch of old guys at the convention that were saying, we don't want any little kids being the president of states. Because at that time, these were all signers of the Constitution or adopters. people that voted for the Constitution with this age limit, right? You had in New Jersey, Maryland, North Carolina, South Carolina, New York, New Hampshire, Georgia, Massachusetts, New York, and Virginia. All of these people that voted for this provision in the Constitution were prohibited. They prohibited themselves from, at that point, being elected president because they at least understood at that age, that, yeah, it's not appropriate for me to be in that position. They were wise enough to limit that to people that had had a certain amount of years of experience. Now, you know, obviously that doesn't guarantee anything, but it is, you know, these different limitations that are put in there are guardrails to help prevent abuse and... Things that, you know, problems that could happen because of allowing foreigners and people without experience to be in that position. Then we go to Article 2, Section 1, Clauses 5 through 8. How the president is elected in his qualifications, right? Only citizens. It must be 35. Line of succession at the event of the death of the president. It goes over that. And then how the president gets paid. So it's set by Congress. It's currently about $400,000 a year. And the fact that he gets paid is in the Constitution.

What he gets paid is left to Congress to set. And then Clause 8 is the oath of office. Okay. Then what are the powers of the president regarding the military? Clause 1, the president shall be commander-in-chief of the Army and Navy of the United States. and of the militia of the several states when called into the actual service of the United States. That's a very important caveat, because too often, especially since we have unconstitutional wars now, and we have basically a standing army locally as well as nationally, the president is referred to as the commander-in-chief. all of the time. But we see here that he's only the commander in chief of the military when the military is called into the service of the United States, essentially when war is declared. If the military hasn't been called up by Congress, then it is left to the several states and their governors are in control of the militias and um and so there there is no really there's there's no commander in chief if there's no war is what that means add a little bit to what you just said so commander chief is defined in federal's paper 69 i recommend you read i think it's the fifth paragraph uh it's also talked about i think in the 10th uh federal's paper too where it backs up what you say It refers to, and this Hamilton wrote this, it refers to the president as commander chief is the role of identical to that of an admiral or general. And it's implicit or explicitly indicated that he is to take orders, just what you said. And the orders come from Congress. And so if anybody thinks the president has the power to initiate any. military action of any sort, just refer them to Federalist Paper 69. I recommend everybody read that paragraph and put it to memory. Thank you. Yes. So explain. Sorry, hold on.

Explain the part there about the Army and the Navy then, if we're not supposed to have a standing Army. Yeah, so all of those, right? So he's the Commander-in-Chief of the Army, the Navy, and the militias. when Congress declares war. And so those things are, so we don't have an army. The army can, the only thing we have a standing military force of is a Navy. And that's as a defensive against invasion from a foreign force. And so when they're out there, they're just basically being trained and directed under the direction of Congress. who regulates the militia, I mean, regulates the Navy. And so the generals that are basically full time Navy generals or commanders or whatever it is you have in the Navy, those are the only ones that would have a job all the time under the direction of Congress. And so when Congress declares war, then you have all of those things brought up at once. And he's the commander in chief of all of them. Yeah, absolutely. So then, like you said, the Navy is there full time, but the Army is only going to be called together when they've declared war. Exactly. Yep.

Yes, to add to that. So funding for the Navy, a standing Navy, can be for 10 years, even longer, a bill. But the Constitution clearly indicates that the Army, that's why there is a national authorization. in every budget every year has to be funded every year and a simple explanation is the navy can't enslave the american people it can't create a police state right but the army and the founder fathers talked about this the army can't because the army can come into america as it's already begun under especially under trump uh to uh impose uh force on the American people, where the Navy, the worst they can do is bomb ports in cities on the coast, but they can't enslave the massive population, the general population of America, unlike what an army can do. Right. Yep. Okay. Now we go to clauses 11 and 12. Going back to Article 1, Section 8, talking about the military again, because Right. The it's kind of like with the executive. Right. The president only enforces the laws passed by Congress. The president. can only be the commander -in-chief when the military is called up. And so when are they called up, right? This is Congress's power to declare war, grant letters of mark and reprisal, and to make rules concerning captures on land and water. But no appropriation of money to that use shall be for a longer term than two years. So a war can only be funded for two years at a time, max. then it has to be brought up and debated again. And so this is Congress's job. Nobody else has the job to do this. If any other branch tries to do this, they're violating the law. Yeah, question.

So you're saying right now the president is not the commander-in-chief at all because he hasn't been given any authority to go to war. Correct. And so the war that is going on right now, and I'll get into that in a second, is illegal. So explaining this, James Madison at the convention said, a standing military force with an overgrown executive will not long be safe companions to liberty. The means of defense against foreign danger have been always the instruments of tyranny at home. Among the Romans, it was a standing maxim to excite a war. Whenever a revolt was apprehended throughout all Europe, the armies kept up under the pretext of defending have enslaved the people. So if any of you remembers in during the nineties, there was a movie called, was it the movie called was called this? I can't remember, but it was talking about wag the dog. I think was, was, was the term. And basically it was this idea of, of war being used to. by a president to distract from problems that he's having domestically. And so that was what Republicans were accusing Clinton of when they were, when, when they, you know, the, the war in Bosnia during the nineties. And so, and we could say the same thing currently where the war in Iran was a distraction from the Epstein files. And so we see this as a general rule, is that if one person has the ability to excite war, it was because it was to distract from domestic problems.

We've got to defend ourselves against a foreign enemy. And so if you're going against the president or if you're going against the government, you are a traitor and you're supporting. the Iranians or you're supporting the, you know, the, the communist or your support, you know, you're supporting some foreign enemy of the Chinese, like they're claiming with the data centers. It's, it's always, you know, you're, if you don't support this thing that we're doing, then you're a friend of our enemy. And so that's why they wanted to divide this up. So one person by themselves couldn't excite the people to war. You had to get basically, you know, a vast majority. of Congress, both the House and the Senate, to go along with it. And not only, you know, the Senate would have been much harder at this point because it was chosen by the state legislatures. And so you have the Congress representing the people, and then you have the Senate representing the state legislatures. You weren't going to get all a majority of both of these bodies to support a war to cover. for the president. And so they wanted to make sure and give this power only to Congress, nobody else. And so let's ask the question. Here's a pop quiz for you. When was the last time Congress declared war? Anybody know?

World War II. World War II, yeah. Good job. Mark, was that what you were going to say? It was June 5th, 1942 against Bulgaria. Hungary and Romania. We were already at war with Germany and Japan. But the last time we declared war was June 5th, 1942, against those three countries. I thought within a few days after Roosevelt's infamous speech, Congress declared war on Germany and Japan. And so this was after the fact. And so you can't just declare war and say we're at war. You have to declare war with each each each country you're going to war with has to be declared independently. And so we have, of course, ever since then, every single war. And and they always say it's not a war. It's a police action. It's a you know, it's a it's a connect. It's a it's a conflict. Right. And so we have the Korean War. You have the Vietnam, Iran, Afghanistan. et cetera, right? Just go down the list. There have been many, many wars that have, of course, every single military action since 1942 has been a violation of the constitution. And worse than that is that they're UN wars. They're not just a tyrant acting unilaterally. These are wars that we were forced into by an unelected global, tyrannical communist government. With Korea and Vietnam claiming to be anti-communist wars, they were not. So now moving on to how do you get rid of a president? If the president just cannot be reined in and he will not obey the constitution, he needs to be gotten rid of. Impeachment is the method that is in the constitution. The vice president, the vice president, all civil officers of the United States shall be removed from office on impeachment for the and conviction of treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors. So essentially high crimes and misdemeanors, misdemeanors are specifically, you know, there are definitions of what a misdemeanor is, but high crimes. was left open so that Congress could decide, say, no, these actions might not fit treason or bribery or a misdemeanor, but they are heinous enough that he needs to be removed from office. Let's see here. Mark, yes. Go ahead, Mark.

I heard a legal presentation from the founding father era. uh on what the definition of misdemeanors was yeah it's almost everything it's a lie it's uh the person's honored if he if he tells one lie that's grounds for impeaching and convicting i think we should always use the word convicting because impeachment's just the first step well we're going to get to that we're going to get to that so yeah but but i think it's important we know every lie he uh our president's saying they say all of them say thousands of lies and falsehoods, but most of our lies. Anything that you can get the Congress to convict on is basically a legitimate reason to get rid of them. So then we go to how impeachment works. So that's the first step of removal is impeachment. The House of Representatives shall choose, and that's their original spelling, their speaker and other officers and shall have the sole power of impeachment. Okay. So let's see. Oh, let me go. So what that means is basically it is a trial to present the facts of why he should be impeached. It's almost like the comparison might be to a grand jury. It's not the thing that actually sends somebody to jail. It's the thing that says a trial to send them to jail should occur. Now, impeachment doesn't send somebody to jail. It just removes them from office. So an impeachment is basically the process of sending them to trial to see if they should be removed from office. Mark, yes. Mark, you're muted. Yeah, the best way to categorize it, it's most identical to the legal process of indictment, whether it's grand jury or prosecutor. And they do a trial to determine whether he should be indicted. And then once that's decided, then on to the next step, which I think you're about to talk about. Yep.

The next step, right, it goes to the Senate. If the House impeaches, it goes to the Senate. The Senate shall have the sole power to try all impeachments. When sitting for that purpose, they shall be on oath or affirmation. And when the President of the United States is tried, The chief justice shall preside of the Supreme Court and no person. So typically it'd be the it's the the vice president. But here in the impeachment, it is the chief justice of the Supreme Court. And no person shall be convicted without the concurrence of two thirds of the members present. So they didn't want to make it a political witch hunt. Basically, if we've got a simple majority of one faction or another. We don't want them just getting rid of people because they didn't like the color of their hair, basically their political affiliation. But they felt that if they could get two-thirds of the Senate to agree that they should be removed, that it was most likely a legitimate reason and the guy needs to be getting rid of.

And so look at judgment in cases of impeachment shall not extend further than the removal from office. Right. So even if they're impeached for treason, they don't go to prison for treason. They don't become they don't get executed for treason. They're simply removed from office and disqualification to hold and enjoy any office of honor, trust or profit in the under the United States. So if they're impeached, they're forever banned from holding office or position of authority. But the party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to indictment, trial, judgment, and punishment according to law. So he's impeached. He's removed from office. Then after that, he can be indicted and then tried on criminal offenses if he was, you know, if that happened, right? If there is evidence of illegal activities. Mark, yes. Yeah, of course, the U.S. Supreme Court thinks they're above the Constitution. And a year ago, they passed that ruling that said that as long as the president's doing something that's presidential business-like, which it could be anything, and right now, as you talked about last time, 90% or so of the federal government is unconstitutional. So if they continue doing some business-like unconstitutional act, He is immune from any punishment after he leaves in office and after he leaves office.

So this provision you're saying is that unconstitutional ruling of the Supreme Court is null and void, correct? I'm wondering if they would say, well, if he was impeached for that, then they would say, well, then it wasn't doing the duty of the president. Maybe they would change it. I don't know. They could have that as an excuse. Well, it has nothing to do with impeachment. It's about prosecuting for his acts. Not impeachment, criminal prosecution. Yeah. Okay, so another pop quiz. Have any presidents ever been impeached? Anybody? Yes. Anybody know how many presidents have been impeached? Five. Two, wasn't it? We got five. We got two. So the answer is Johnson, Andrew Johnson, Bill Clinton and Donald Trump. Oh, right. I forgot about Trump. There have been three presidents that have been impeached. Now, the next question is, how many presidents have ever been convicted? Does anybody know the answer to that? Zero. Zero. Yeah, that's the answer. Zero. So nobody has ever been removed from office by the Senate. A lot of sometimes when I've given this presentation, people will say, you know, what about Nixon?

Nixon wasn't impeached. He wasn't even impeached, let alone tried. He resigned. So there's nobody has been removed from conviction of an impeachment. Other federal officers, it's not a big number, have been impeached, convicted. Sure. No president. 20 or 15. Yeah, it's very it's very rare. So now we go to Article 3, which is the judiciary. The judicial power of the United States. The judicial power shall extend to all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and councils, to all cases of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction, to controversies to which the United States shall be a party, to controversies between two more states, between a state and the citizens of another state, between citizens of different states. between citizens of the same state claiming lands under grants of different states and between a state or the citizens thereof and foreign states citizens or subjects i have a yeah mark you have your hand up yes i wanted what a last comment about article two the powers of the executive branch of the president everybody should be reading this it's very short it's a 10 minute read uh at most five minutes but what's really important here is most of what and you've covered covered it most of what is in there by far the large majority is not executive powers it is a mechanism uh legal mechanisms to operate the executive branch uh what time what day of the election what age it must be the vast majority what you talked about were mechanisms to for the structure of the government. not executive powers. Yep. Okay. So looking at this, right, it says to extend to all cases to controversies, right? What doesn't it give? What power doesn't it give the judiciary? What power do we not see given to them here? Any ideas?

Legislative. Obviously legislative, right? So let's get into that. We have Thomas Jefferson, the letter to Abigail Adams says, The opinion which gives the judges the right to decide what laws are constitutional and what not, not only for themselves and their own sphere of action, but for the legislature and executive also in their spheres, would make the judiciary a despotic branch. Now, this basically wipes out almost every Supreme Court decision for the last 160 years, maybe longer. This says that they don't have the authority to act against legislation. That's not their power, right? They were not given the authority to decide what laws are constitutional and what laws are not. It's only in regard to cases and controversies, so specific issues. They can't say the law is unconstitutional because that is legislating. They can only say that an individual's rights were violated, that the Constitution was violated in this case. Let's see here, Mark, yes. Yes, you've talked about this before. Mulberry versus Madison, I think it was 1803, is when the first, they gave to themselves the power. It's often referred to as supremacy, judicial supremacy, to decide anything and everything in America, to rule on everything. And so you're saying, and Jefferson's saying they don't have that power. The Constitution's saying they don't have that power. But they gave themselves that power. And I hear people say that's okay. They gave them themselves.

How can you give yourself a power you were never delegated about? Right. Right. Yeah. You can't take a power you weren't given. That's the whole point of the Constitution. Absolutely. So we look at checks and balances on this, right? Legislative, judicial, and executive. If they do that, they destroy that. So let's get into Article 4, which is the full faith and credit and entrance into the union. What do these things mean? Let's see here. Let me go back over here. We've got some, I'm just getting rid of background noise. Sorry. But if you've got a question, don't let me muting you stop you. You can unmute and ask a question. So let's see. Okay. Full faith and credit. Full faith and credit shall be given in each state to the public acts, records, and judicial proceedings. So what people think that that means and what it's been, you know, the Supreme Court has ruled that it means is that if California passes sodomite marriage laws, then everybody... has to have sodomite marriage. Because if you move to, if you move from California to Utah, you supposedly have to recognize California's regulations. You have to give full faith and credit to their standard of marriage licenses. Okay. That's what they think. That's what people think it means is that the court means, says it means, but the ultimate conclusion of such an argument is, whatever one state passes as the rules now becomes the law for every other state. So if I get a haircutting license, these are things I don't believe should be licensed. Don't get me wrong, but I'm just using them to make a point. If California passes a law on haircutting or nails or construction or law, then that means that every other state has to accept those laws and your certificate. for that profession when you move to their state. And so that would make, you know, every state basically a ruler of every other state. And that is not what full faith and credit means.

And so the court ruling on sodomite marriage is ridiculous if you take it to its ultimate conclusion. They would literally have to say the same thing about everything, right? And so James Madison explained this. He says, the power here established may be rendered a very convenient instrument of justice and be particularly beneficial on the borders of contiguous states where the effects liable to justice may be suddenly and secretly translated in any stage of the process within a foreign jurisdiction. If you're doing business or you're working with someone in a state that's contiguous, meaning that they're touching each other, they're together, then this can be very helpful to make sure that you are. I'm going to give you an example of the application. I'm going to give you an application prior to Congress, I mean, the Constitution, and then a modern application of it to kind of make this make more sense in modern language. So we go back to this 1960, I mean, sorry, the 1659 treaty between France and Spain. The agreement provided for both the French and the Spanish governments to issue maritime passports and bills of lading to confirm a ship's ownership and cargo. And then the quoting that says, unto which passes and sea letters, full faith and credit shall be given. So it's only for that specific thing. You didn't have some court saying, well, France and Spain entered into this agreement having to give full faith and credit to their passports. Now they have to submit to every other thing that Spain and France pass. No, that's of course not. It was within the specific confines of this specific treaty. And so let me get again. We have here James Madison debunking this saying judgments in one state should be the ground of actions in other states. And that acts of the legislatures should be included for this for the sake of acts of insolvency. So basically, this is talking about bankruptcy.

So if you go to if you declare bankruptcy in Virginia and you move to. Delaware thinking that, hey, my problems that are in Delaware are left behind me. They're like, no, no, you declared bankruptcy. You can't just all of a sudden start ripping people off in this new place. Right. It's what your crimes that you did over there are you're not absolved from. just because you left that state. It'd be like if you were to travel, and again, I don't believe in driver's licenses as a legitimate government function, but just for sake of arguments and example, can you imagine if you're traveling across the country and you had to, as soon as you crossed the state borders, you had to get a new driver's license? No. And so what they're saying is as you're traveling through, Your driver's license works within our state. However, if you move from Colorado to Utah, you have to get a new driver's license. In fact, you know, I've moved from Washington to Arizona and those two states had different standards to get a driver's license. And so my Washington driver's license wasn't automatically recognized in the state of Arizona. Because they had different standards. They had the right to different standards. And so I had to meet the standards of the state of Arizona.

But if I was just driving through Arizona, then they couldn't say, oh, you're not legal to be here. But you can drive through. But as soon as you decided to have residency, you become a citizen of the state, of that state. That state now has the right to decide. what are the requirements of driving? And so that should have been what the Supreme Court said about marriage licenses, that sure, if I'm driving through, then my marriage license, you know, I can visit at the hospital, whatever it is, would apply. But if I move to that state, then I have to meet the standards of marriage that that state has set. That would be consistent. Otherwise, We get, you know, there's no reason to have an individual state standard for anything because the other state has already mandated what the standards are. Mark, go ahead. Yes, largely the faith and credit applies to property rights. And other entitlements, but you're putting out examples of that. So another example would be traveling and every state requires you to have proof of ownership of your car or proof of ownership of the belongings in the car, like suitcases and so forth. And so they're saying we respect the entitlements you have earned in other states and the property rights that you can prove that you own that property. without you having to do so in this state. Right. Yep. Thank you.

Then we go to the entrance into the union. New states may be admitted by the Congress into this union, but no new state shall be formed or erected within the jurisdiction of any other state, nor any state be formed by the junction of two or more states or parts of states without the consent of the legislatures of the states. concerned as well as of the Congress. So if you're going to become a state and you're not a part of the union already, then that's Congress's jurisdiction. But if you're a group of people within the state of Utah, let's say Utah County wanted to create its own state. And so if they were going to do that, then they would have to get the approval of the Utah state legislature and Congress. So it's a little bit difficult. It's more difficult to merge two states together or to create a state of an already existing state than it would be to have an outside like Puerto Rico, right? Then they just get Congress's approval, okay? Republicanism, this is Article 4, Section 4. The United States shall guarantee to every state in the union a Republican form of government, okay? So they're not guaranteeing... the union is Republican.

They're saying each state, if you're going to join the union, your form of government has to be a Republican form of government, has to be based on the rule of law, not the mob. So Republicanism is the key of that. Let me, let's see here. Let's, Mark, go ahead real quick. Yeah, the Republican also includes, well, it's implicit what you already stated. legislative branches. And that's why every state has two bicameral legislative and elections. But the core of republicanism is representative government. So you have representatives to go to a capital and then create the laws that are constitutional. Exactly. So what I've done here is I have gone almost 10 minutes over and we've got a lot more to cover. So what we will do is we will merge that into next week's training. And we will cover Republicanism more in depth because it deserves not to be rushed through. So because it's very, very important because there are parts of it that people in the liberty movement have rejected and they support something that is anti-Republican. And I don't mean like Republican Party, but I mean anti-Republican as the Constitution defines it. And so we're going to cover that more in depth next week as well as. Articles 5, 6, and 7. But let's go ahead and just finish up for tonight. We'll have a closing prayer and then get into open forum.

Our dear Heavenly Father, we're thankful that we have this opportunity to learn more about the Constitution and thankful for being in this forum for this opportunity. And bless our efforts in all that we do in the name of Jesus Christ. Amen.