Articles 5-7 of the United States Constitution

TRANSCRIPT

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

Our Father in heaven, we are grateful to come together this evening to receive these instructions and enlightenment with the hope that we may increase our understanding and knowledge of the principles of freedom and of the building up of thy kingdom. Please guide and direct Ben in giving this presentation and these instructions. May thy spirit be with him and with each of us to enlighten our minds. Help us to understand and to try to apply him to our lives so we may assist in his labor. We ask it in the name of thy son, Jesus Christ. Amen.

I wanted to get into republicanism because this is a really misunderstood part of the Constitution, especially because we see the violation of republicanism as a solution. And it's a shortcut. You know, we get really discouraged sometimes and we think, hey, here's something we can do. And it doesn't take a lot of work. And I'm going to get into what that means. And so we get really sucked into it because it seems like an easy, quick fix to the problems that we see. But when we understand the Constitution, we understand why it's a problem and why the solutions that we talk about, the Tree of Liberty Society. are the solutions that actually are what we need to be focused on, what actually work and don't violate principles, right? So in the Constitution, it says, the United States shall guarantee to every state in this union a Republican form of government. So I cover this in my presentation that I gave in the past, and we have it on our YouTube channel.

Maybe, Rod, if you want to find that for us and put that in the... in the chat you asked me about it the other day um i think um if you want to put that video in the chat that'd be great um but talking about how often when we talk about republics and democracies uh people will say you know you'll have the masses will preach the idea that we're a democracy and we know that that's not true anybody that's studied the principles of liberty but then they come into oh the united states is a republic Well, just like the Constitution doesn't say anything about democracy, this is really the only part of the Constitution that mentions Republican form of government. It doesn't ever say that the United States is a Republican government. It is the fact that these states themselves are Republican forms of government. And so, as I mentioned in that presentation, We are a confederation of sovereign, independent republics. And and so every state is guaranteed by the union a Republican form of government. And as I meant, as we shared in previous training, what that means. Rod, go ahead. You have your hand raised. Well, go ahead and finish your thought there.

Oh, just in that video clip I showed a few weeks ago from Overview of America, we are, you know, what a republic is, is a nation ruled by law, not by mob rule, not by an oligarchy, but by law. And so the Constitution is, you know, a form of republicanism because it's laid out as law, but we are not one nation. We are a confederation of... of 50 republics but go ahead rod well yeah i was just gonna i want to dig dig a little deeper on this part here the guarantee from the united states right because the wording kind of makes it sound like it's being given to the states by the federal government right which i think is where a lot of the misconceptions come from that i the u .s federal government is going to give this to you right but clearly that's not what that's about because they were they were the ones that formed the the federal government in the first place exactly yeah you can't yeah it'd be like you know it'd be your kid giving you a right if uh if that was the case but yes so because the create the creator the creation can never be greater than the creator and as we remember that then you know the states created the federal government then we always understand that the states are greater than the feds and that That principle alone just rips away the illusion that is put out there by, you know, government schools and the media about, you know, about what the federal government is, because they always want to make it as if the federal government's the boss when that's just not the case at all. So getting into what does that mean? Republicanism.

This is John Taylor. He says, we talk sometimes about Vox Populi, Vox Di. The voice of the people is the voice of God. Yet sometimes it is the voice of the devil, which would be more proper by Vox Populi, Vox Diabli. The voice of the people is frequently the voice of the devil. And that's why the founding fathers didn't give us a democracy where, you know, mob rule, 50% plus one is what the law is. We're a republic, rule by law. And so how about initiatives and referendums? This is what I was talking about earlier. People will say, let's get signatures and let's put this thing on the ballot so we can vote to get our rights back. And so adding a new law or repealing a law or both legislative processes to put that power in the hands of the masses, meaning the mob, makes us a democracy. So when we talk about referendums and initiatives, the difference between one is an initiative. is the people creating a law.

A referendum is the people repealing a law. And so Article 6, Clause 3 says, Senators and Representatives before mentioned and the members of the several state legislatures and all executive and judicial officers, both of the United States and of the several states, shall be bound by oath or affirmation to support this Constitution. This is the other part of the Constitution that violates, that initiatives and referendums violate. Because A, right, the first one is the top, where we don't believe in mob rule. The masses don't pass laws or repeal laws. What body is given legislative powers? The legislature, the Congress. And then Article 6 says that those people in Congress the House or the Senate, they are required to make an oath or affirmation to the Constitution. And when you register to vote, you make no such oath or affirmation. So you are not authorized to be a legislator if you do not engage in an oath or affirmation to the Constitution in the United States. According to Article 4, as well as Article 6 of the Constitution, initiatives and referendums are illegal, meaning unconstitutional. Any questions on that as we switch over to...

Does that make sense or we can any confusion? I just want to make sure that we're not moving ahead when we're not ready Okay, I'm not nobody's if we don't chime up or Then we can we'll just assume let's see here. Let's cancel share window Okay, now we get into article 5 amendments and preserving the state's voice so article 5 covers two topics is the first one is hey we forgot something or we goofed up and we need to change the Constitution itself and so there are essentially two methods of changing the Constitution and one of those methods have been done 27 times before and the other method has never been tried before but the enemies of the Constitution are working to implement it today. And so I want to go over what those are, what that means. So amending the Constitution. The first part says the Congress. So this is what we are used to. This is what's been done 27 times before. The Congress, whenever two-thirds of both houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose amendments to this Constitution. So 27 times. Two thirds of the House and two thirds of the Senate said, here's an amendment we would like to propose. OK.

And then the other method is on the application. This has never been done before. Of the legislatures of two thirds of the several states shall call for a convention for proposing amendments. OK. Which. Sorry. shall be valid to all intents and purposes as part of this Constitution when ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several states or by conventions in three -fourths thereof as the one or the other mode of ratification may be proposed by Congress. Okay, so the first one. So if Congress proposes the amendment, then it's a valid amendment if it's ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several states. But if it's done by the application of two-thirds of the several states, then it's by conventions in three-fourths thereof as the one or the other mode of ratification may be proposed by the Congress. So Congress sets the rules. They decide which mode of ratification and they set the rules for the convention. They're the ones that decide.

So once a convention is called by the states and then it's the Congress's role then to decide how is the convention going to be held? Who are the delegates? Who is sent there? And then what this actually does is creates a... a constitutional convention. Some people call it a convention of states. It's an article five convention, whatever you call it. That's this is it's an article. It's a convention by article five. And this new body is a sovereign body, just like when the articles of confederation, when the convention came together to amend the article articles of confederation. the convention became a sovereign body, how its powers were of its own. And so if this convention were to be called again, then it would be a sovereign body. And it could change the rules of ratification, just like because the Articles of Confederation, for example, the Articles of Confederation required a unanimous vote to amend... the the the the the articles. But this convention got together. The founding fathers got together and said, we've changed the rules to to be nine out of the 13 states. And so this because it was a sovereign body, you had the authority to do that. And once those nine states ratified it, then the Constitution became valid. And so today, right, if if the people we have in Congress. set the rules of the convention, of who is sent to the convention. What are the type of people do we think are going to be sent to that convention?

And so what do we think? Are there going to be the proposed amendments that that convention sets up? And are they going to change the rules for ratification? It itself is a sovereign body and gets to decide that. And so that's why the enemies of liberty are promoting this idea. Today, because they know that if they can just get a convention called, then they can have a radical takeover and they can have the fundamental changes removing all the checks and balances and limitations. I mean, checks on the Constitution or on the power of the federal government and change the rules and change the Bill of Rights. They can do whatever they want. OK, but with the amendment process. There is a limit to getting back to the third. If the Congress proposes an amendment, there is something that they're not allowed to do. And that's this bottom part right here. It says that provided that no state without its consent shall be deprived of its equal suffrage in the Senate.

So the people are represented by the House. And the state, meaning the legislatures of the state, are represented by the Senate. And so this made it so that no state legislature, no state, could have its vote, that's what suffrage means, could have its vote taken away without its consent. So if they were to propose an amendment, like let's say the 17th Amendment, taking away the vote of the Senate and giving it to the people, That amendment would not be valid unless it was unanimous because it says that no state without its consent can be deprived of its vote. So three-fourths, right, or two-thirds or three-fourths cannot have its vote taken away from it without its consent. So even if, like today, 49 states voted to... taking away the vote of the states, it would still be invalid because one state voted no. It has to be unanimous. It's called the unamendable clause, right? So let me get to, I guess, Article 5, back to that. Well, we actually went over that, so I'm not going to rehash that. So when is Article 5 good for? So no state without its consent shall be deprived of equal suffrage in the Senate. Oops, let me go back. Okay. Okay.

So let me explain part of that, you know, the reason why. And it gets into basically why we have the electoral college is because we don't believe in mob rule. Otherwise, if, you know, we had. And if a president was elected by, what's it called? The popular vote, right? Whoever won the most votes in the 50 states, then basically you'd have California, Texas, and New York choosing who the president is. And everybody else is basically out of luck because they just don't have the population needed to be able to compete with those states. And so that's why they gave us the Articles of Confederation, because look at the state of just the city of Los Angeles compared to the entire state of Utah. One city would outnumber one entire state's representation in choosing a president all by itself. And so the founding fathers recognized that that was the smaller states. We're like, there's no way we're going to allow the bigger states to outdo us. And so we want to be able to ensure the states are protected. So that's why you have the Electoral College. And that's why you have that part of the Article 5 of making sure that the states themselves, right, the legislatures don't have, you know, don't have their vote taken away because they didn't want to have. Bigger states taking away their voice.

And the same thing where we have nationwide, where you have the city of L.A. having more votes than Utah. Let's just use Utah as the example of the counties protecting the voice of the states. So when you put the vote of a senator into the hands of the people, the same problem of a national popular vote occurs in the choosing of a senator. Whereas Salt Lake has demonstrably or a very liberal Salt Lake County has demonstrably more people voting than the other counties in the state. And so when it was and so they wanted to make sure that the state legislature, because it was done by where basically the just like the states have two votes in the Senate. where the Senate and the legislatures were all represented by one or two senators from each county. So to make sure that the counties aren't having their voice taken away, so like Juab or Iron County don't have their voice taken away just because Salt Lake wanted somebody else. And so fast forward to, right, this is at the convention, they said in 1887. It was feared that three-fourths of the states might be brought to do things fatal to particular states as abolishing them altogether or depriving them of their equality in the Senate. To protect this, it was added that no state be deprived of its equality in the Senate. In order that no consolidation should take place, it is provided that no state shall by any amendment or alteration be ever deprived in an equal suffrage in the Senate without its own consent. So that's what the founding father said in the ratification at the convention. But we have, fast forward to 1913, the 17th Amendment, where the United States shall be composed of two senators from each state elected by the people thereof. removing it from the legislatures. So the 17th Amendment proposed, right? We have the dark blue states are ratifiers. Then the light blue ratified it after it was already adopted.

Then the gray states have, they didn't do anything. So they didn't give their consent. They didn't say no, but they didn't give their consent. So it can't be effective. And Utah was the one state to say, no, we don't want this. And so it was rejected. So based on the gray and the red states, the 17th Amendment is an illegal amendment. OK. And so just so that the the 17th Amendment people debate, you know, was the 16th the income tax property ratified? And that's you know, that's the debate that people have. But it is it is. To me, undebatable that the 17th Amendment was properly ratified because it is the one amendment that had to be unanimous. And if it wasn't unanimous, it was automatically null and void. And so to be able to protect the voice of the states. And so what states should do now is nullify the 17th Amendment. We'll get into that a little bit later. Any questions on this? Part of the Constitution. Pretty clear, hopefully? Okay. Article 6, the Supremacy Clause and the Oath. We mentioned the Supremacy Clause in our delegated powers training. But because we're at Article 6, we'll cover it. The Constitution, the laws of the United States, which shall be made in pursuance thereof. Again, that's the key, right? Laws that are made in pursuance, meaning in compliance with the Constitution.

And all treaties made which shall be made under the authority of the United States shall be the supreme law of the land. So as long as so, you know, the states have agreed to submit to the laws passed that are in pursuance of the Constitution, the delegated authority of Article 1, Section 8, the delegated authority of, you know, Article 2 with the president, Article 3 with the judiciary. If it is in compliance with those delegated powers, we say that we will submit to them. Okay. So let's do a Q&A. Does that mean every bill passed by Congress is legal? I should hope that that's obviously wrong. We all know that that's incorrect. And the founding fathers said that that was correct. Because in 1798, so just, you know. Within a decade of the ratification of the Constitution, states started saying, hey, federal government, you're getting out of control. And so Virginia and Kentucky passed resolutions saying that they were not going to obey the laws passed by Congress because they were not in pursuance of the Constitution, meaning they were not there. So Virginia said that this is quoting from their resolution in 17. 98, the General Assembly of Virginia doth unequivocally express a firm resolution to maintain and defend the Constitution of the United States. So they weren't being rebellious.

They were saying we want to defend the Constitution. So to defend the Constitution, we have to take this action. They said that this assembly most solemnly declares a warm attachment to the union of the states. We love the Constitution to maintain which it pledges its powers and that for this end it is their duty to watch over and oppose every infraction of those principles which constitute the only basis of that union, because a faithful observance of them can alone secure its existence and the public happiness. So they're saying that it's their job, right? The pieces of paper, right? The Ten Commandments don't enforce themselves. Otherwise, we'd be in a much better world. The Constitution doesn't enforce itself. And so it's our job as the state legislature to watch over it because it's only on that basis that we watch over the Constitution that will ensure the faithful observance of the Constitution. So they continue that this assembly doth explicitly and preemptorily declare that it views the powers of the federal government. as resulting from the compact to which the states are parties, and as limited by the plain sense, and that in case of a deliberate, palpable, and dangerous exercise of other powers not granted by the said compact, the states, who are parties thereto, have the right and are in duty bound to interpose. So they're saying that if you, you know, if... did not. It's a palpable and dangerous, deliberate exercise of powers that you were not given. So, hey, federal government, if you engage in activity you were not given permission to engage in, it's our job. Right.

It's not just our right. It's our duty to interpose. So we talked about this before of the three levels of fighting tyranny. nullification, meaning we ignore. Then the second level is interpose, meaning you stand in between the illegal act and the people, you know, the actor and the person being violated by the actor and then tyrannicide. So they're saying the same thing. They're duty bound to interpose. And so we're going to talk more about that as we get into the Bill of Rights, what that means, who actually has the power. to decide, right? Because today we're told that the only body that's allowed to say if something's constitutional or not is the Supreme Court. But that's absolutely not what the founding fathers said. We mentioned that, but we'll get into that when we get into the Bill of Rights. So let's get into Article 6, Section 3, which is the Oath of Office. Senators, representatives before mentioned, and the members of the several state legislatures. And all executive and judicial officers, both of the United States and of the several states, shall be bound by oath or affirmation to support this Constitution. That's an important thing. It's its own training that we're going to cover in the future. No religious test shall be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.

You weren't required to be a specific denomination, but the oath, they said, was a presupposition that you were a Bible, a God-believing person. Because otherwise, if you weren't, then your oath meant nothing. And so the idea that you had to be a religious person, you know, anybody can lie. And so it is presupposed that if you're a liar, then it doesn't matter if you pretend to be a religious person or not, you're going to be a liar. Then we go to Article 7, ratification. The ratification of the convention of the nine states shall be sufficient for the establishment of this constitution between the states so ratifying the same. Again, I mentioned this earlier, that the Articles of Confederation said that it had to be unanimous. But they changed it to only being sufficient that of the nine states of the 13 to ratify. So let's get into the Bill of Rights. And I think, you know, as we look at the wording of the Bill of Rights, I think we're going to all agree that it might not be the best name to be given to this list of things. But, you know. It is what it is. But we want to look at what was the mindset. Why was it that the Bill of Rights were added? Because, in fact, it was a compromise. It was an agreement made by the Federalists. There were two groups of people at the convention. You had the Federalists and the Anti-Federalists. And the Federalists were the ones that were in favor of the Constitution. And the Anti-Federalists were really the ones that were saying, no, this isn't a good idea. So what were they concerned about? They were really worried that if rights were not enumerated, that they could be trampled.

And I would say that that is a valid concern. But we also have on the other side, which the Federalists were saying was that, well, if we don't list them, then they're going to be assumed that it's not a right. And so they were both back and forth. They were saying, well, if we don't list them, then you might say that we don't have them. And the Federalists were like, well, if you do list them and we forget something, then you don't have it. So that was kind of the back and forth regarding it. The next one was, there was, and this is what I mentioned, was that there was no way to enumerate all rights. It didn't mean that the people didn't have them. And so that's what they were, that was their rebuttal. And the powers of the general government were limited. And so there was no need. That was what the Federalists said. We don't need to worry about your rights because if they weren't given like for guns, right, there is nowhere in the Constitution delegated authority.

There is nothing in there that gives the federal government the authority to regulate guns. Therefore, we don't need to enumerate it because we didn't give them the power to regulate them. So therefore, we don't got to worry about it. And so that was that was the Federalists counter argument. And so I think we can see today because of the attitude that so many, you know, we see in the courts and in rulings that it is only because we have the Second Amendment that the courts have not because they've taken this whole new thing of, you know, the necessary and proper clause and the general welfare where they twisted the Constitution to say, well, it's for the general welfare. We need to ban guns. And so the Anti-Federalists, you know, were right in that respect of saying, you know, good thing we listed that because if we hadn't, it would be legislated out of existence. So as we read the language of the First Ten Amendments, which is known as the Bill of Rights, I think we'll come to the conclusion that they're actually a list of thou shalt nots. None of them say you have a right to a gun. None of them say you have a right to religion. They all say the government can't do something, right? Amendment 1, Congress shall make no law respecting the freedom of the press.

They can't make a law regarding religion and the free exercise thereof. Amendment two, shall not be infringed. You're not allowed to write laws about guns. Amendment three is no soldier shall be quartered in people's houses. And then we have the fourth amendment where your right to face your accuser is not going to be violated. And then you're not allowed to be forced to testify against yourself. Amendment 6, there's no indefinite detention. There's no secret trials. Amendment 7, the government can't decide if you're guilty or not. That's left to juries. The government can't punish excessively. People have rights that aren't listed. So just because we didn't list it doesn't mean we don't have it. And then the 10th Amendment is if we didn't give you a power, you're not allowed to do it. So it was kind of the 9th and 10th were kind of a response by the anti -federalists to the federalists to make sure that, hey, we are still saying that this is a compact, that if we didn't give you authority to do something, you don't have the authority to do it. And we want to make sure that you know that you can't do this, right? You can't do it if we didn't tell you you can. You can't do it if we didn't tell you you could. But you really can't make a law about religion, free press, guns, all the things that we have listed here. But really, if we didn't give you permission to do it, you're not allowed to do it. And that's the final say.

And that's the 10th Amendment is called the reader clause, right? You in a contract, every contract has what's called a reader clause. And that is the 10th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. That is the clause that explains, that helps you know how to interpret the entire document. And it says fully, the powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states, respectively, or meaning to the people. And so that's the reader. That's how you're supposed to interpret the Constitution. is all of the things that, you know, if we understand the elastic clause, if we understand the full faith and credit clause, if we understand the, what's it called? The clause talking about the common, you know, the general welfare. If we understand all of those things in light of... we didn't give you permission to do something, you're not allowed to do it. Then it clears up the entire understanding of it. So James Madison, he is explaining this in his writings later on to help the people to really clarify this. There can be no tribunal above the states because they created the Congress.

They created the president. They created the judiciary. There's nobody above them to decide if the Constitution was violated. They are the ultimate. They are the top authority. No one else has authority above the states to decide when the Constitution was violated. And so what do you do about it? Again, in the Kentucky Resolution, Thomas Jefferson says nullification, ignoring it, interposition. Those are the solutions. So the people in the states. Connecticut also said this in 1809. So we have Kentucky and Virginia in 1798. Then 1809, you have Connecticut saying the same thing. Resolved that to preserve the Union, the support of the Constitution of the United States, it becomes the duty of the legislatures of the states in such a crisis of affairs, vigilantly to watch over and vigorously to maintain the powers not delegated to the United States. but to the states respectively or to the people. Due regard to this duty, meaning preserving the union, will not permit this assembly to assist the aforesaid unconstitutional act. So 1809, Connecticut says, what you've just done is illegal. We're not going to help you out in it. So again, this continues on.

And Connecticut's a northern state. Everybody says, oh, nullification, that was decided in the war between the states. because the southern states were rebellious, and they weren't obeying the Congress. They weren't obeying the federal government. Connecticut, a northern state, said the same thing. Northern states, southern states, all the states at this point understood that it was a compact, it was a contract, and when the contract's violated, it is the principal, meaning the creators of the document, that are the ones that are to watch over to make sure that it's... violated and to enforce it if it is. Okay. So another example, a few years later, 1832, Worchester versus Georgia. And there were individuals that were saying that Georgia was violating the Constitution and the Supreme Court rules against Georgia. And so Georgia saying, well, you know what? You're not the final arbiter. And we're going to pass a law that anyone that comes to Georgia to enforce the court's ruling will be hung. So they weren't just like nullifying, right? This is kind of getting into the tyrannicide part of the equation, where if you come in here and violate the Constitution, because we're the last, the states are who are the last arbiters of when it's violated. You come in here to try and enforce this ruling. we're taking care of you.

We're getting rid of you permanently. So that's kind of the final example and explanation of the 10th Amendment and understanding what the Constitution really is and how it's a compact delegated authority and how when the Constitution is violated, it is the right and duty of the people to enforce that contract through two means. We mentioned this before. You either dissolve it. You say you're not going to obey it. So now we're declaring independence just like the 13 colonies did from England or just like Utah did from the United States or just like the southern states did from the United States. You can you can dissolve the you know that you can separate yourself from the contract. Or you can enforce it. And so those are the two ways to do it. And so these guys were saying, okay, we love the union. And so because we love the union, we are going to enforce the contract by either nullifying, interposing, or literally killing anyone that's going to come in here and try to enforce it. Okay.

So in this training, I'm not going to cover. The subsequent amendments to the Constitution, they are basically the rest of the amendments have aspects of them that nullify the rest of the Constitution because they all state some. along the lines of that the Congress has the authority to pass any law to enforce this amendment. And so what they've done is they've said, okay, now we have under that guise, we've been given carte blanche authority to basically do whatever we want. And so those amendments have basically annulled the effect of the Constitution making those amendments themselves. unconstitutional on their face because they don't have the authority in that process to be able to dissolve. Only a convention has the authority to dissolve the Constitution. Therefore, any amendment, like the 17th Amendment, for example, that I mentioned earlier, is illegal and has no authority and should be treated as such. So getting back to the nullification in the 17th Amendment, states have two options because The first one is to nullify, right? Just ignore it, pretend it doesn't exist. But because in the Constitution itself, the authority to, after a senator is elected, the actual body of the Senate has the authority to seat or not seat a senator in that body. And that happened in the early 1900s for the state of Utah, where they had what was called the Reed-Smoot hearings. where they were deciding if they were going to allow Reed Smoot, the senator elected by the legislature of the state of Utah, if they were going to allow him to sit in the Senate. And so if a state were to nullify the 17th Amendment, then the Senate would respond with, we're just not going to see you. And so I think maybe that's why maybe some states haven't stood up to nullify it.

But the other option that they could do... if they had a population with the understanding of why this is an important and good thing, is they could bypass the 17th Amendment by and kind of be in compliance with both the 17th Amendment as well as Article 5, where the state legislature would nominate. They would say, OK, this individual is the Republican nominee. This guy's the Democrat nominee, the Republican nominee. Find some way to do the third party nominees. And then you put that up for a vote of the people. That way, the choices are still the legislatures. And so that way, technically, the voice of the legislature isn't deprived of them without their consent because they chose who the options were. But then it complies with the 17th Amendment because it gives it to the people to decide, you know, which one of those options is who they choose. So that's the completion of our training on the Constitution, starting from Article 1 through the 10th Amendment.

Heavenly Father, we're grateful to be able to come and meet together again this week. We're grateful for the time that Ben puts into these lessons. We ask you to help us to have a better understanding of the Constitution and of the realities of the United States. Help us to keep these things in mind and use them as we analyze the things that are going on in the world today so that we can see them for what they really are and help us as we try to teach these things to others. We say these things in the name of Jesus Christ. Amen.