Recently, there have been numerous descriptions of the type government which exists in the united states of America. I use the term united states loosely as an adjective describing America as it was originally intended. I say loosely because the respective states are hardly united anymore and we become more fragmented as a society with each passing day. We as a people have seemed to have lost our collective identity as Americans and what exactly it means to be an American. What exactly is the form of expression our government should reflect? The intent of this article is to explain in basic common English usage the true nature of our Country and the system and type of government used to govern the respective states and just what are the duties and rights of the respective people of our Country.

First, we merely look at our founding documents, which are legal documents and let them explain for themselves the basis of our government. The Magna Carta was a profound document which brought the King under the rule of Law. It opposed the concept of “the divine right of kings” which presumed the king could rule in any manner as he saw fit. It also opposed the “king’s prerogative” which is essentially and intrinsically no different than our modern day “Executive Order”. The Magna Carta and several other legal documents limited the power of the king and which placed Him under the rule of Law and provided the basis for lawful resistance and the ‘just cause’ of the rebellion of the Colonists. This is essential to understand and grasp if one is to have a correct understanding of the Declaration of Independence. The thinking was that the King abrogated his right to rule a free people when he placed himself above the Law.

For the enlightened America there were two positions, and only two. There is either the rule of men or the rule of law. The rule of men could be democracy which is the rule of the masses or it could be an aristocracy which is the rule of an elitist group, whether the wealthy, nobles, it really made no difference, or a monarchy which is the rule of a king. Each of these was categorically rejected for the supremacy of the rule of Law.

Let us peruse briefly the declaration of Independence. Let us look back to July 4th 1776 with the Declaration of Independence for some basic principles of government and rights.

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”

Here it is indicated that the statement requires absolutely no proof whatsoever as it is self-evident (obvious).

“That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness”.

Here we have a wealth of information brilliantly summated. First, governments are instituted by men for the purpose to secure and protect the rights of its people. Secondly, just powers of the government (as opposed to unjust powers) require the consent of those governed. Thirdly, that government often becomes destructive towards the very thing they were instituted to protect. Simply put, government becomes the thief, robber, murderer depriving its citizenry of rights originally protect under the rule of law.

The fourth point is a little more salient and somewhat unsettling. If a government does in fact become destructive of these ends to which it was established to protect, the people have a ‘right’ to alter or abolish it.

“Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.”

Here is the caution and a repeat of the previously stated ‘right’ emphatic with the concept of ‘duty’ to throw off such government. As such, in summary to this point, when a government becomes abusive to the rights of the people, usurpers of the rule of Law to the end in view of despotism (the arbitrary and capricious rule of man), the people have a ‘right’ and ‘duty’ to revolt. It is a just cause simply because it is the government breaking the rule of law and it is the people attempting to preserve it.

“The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.”

Despotism and Tyranny are words used to describe the King of Great Britain and the type of government being forced upon the people. The logic here is so simple even a child can understand. If the government will not protect your rights, then you are left with no other alternative but to protect your rights yourself, the best you can with the any means necessary. It is your right as well as your duty. Likewise, if it is the government violating your rights or subjecting you to the deprivation of your rights, through the color of law, it then becomes your right and duty to protect those which are threatened in the most expedient and efficient manner possible. At this point it becomes self-evident that the government has outlived its usefulness for those to whom it governs or allegedly protects.

Let us examine to see if historically, the courts have understood this logic. In the case of Reid v Covert 354 US l (1957), the court indicated quite clearly that”

"The United States is entirely a creature of the Constitution. Its power and authority have no other source. It can only act in accordance with all the limitations imposed by the Constitution."

Here we see that the United States or Federal government cannot circumvent, abrogate and legislate around the Constitution. In fact it is the Constitution which grants them powers and restricts their powers. They are entirely a creature of it. Simply put they cannot deny the very thing that gives them their respective powers. It is like sitting on a branch thinking that you will saw the tree away. Ludicrous and I am not referring to the rapper. The federal government cannot deny the very thing that gives them their power. You say absurd! Of course they can!
In Miranda v. Ariz., 384 U.S. 436 at 491 (1966) the courts declared:

"Where rights as secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be no rule making or legislation which will abrogate them."

The courts further indicated in Miller v. U.S. 230 F 486 at 489 that:

"The claim and exercise of a constitutional right cannot be converted into a crime."

Essentially the courts are indicating that in such matters the government has exceeded its just powers and has acted unjustly. As such the following general rule found in the Sixteenth American Jurisprudence, Second Edition, Section 177, 256, 137, 180 seems to give an understanding towards the nature of our government as one which is solely and entirely governed by the rule of law.

"The general rule is that an unconstitutional statute, though having the form and name of law, is in reality no law, but is wholly void and ineffective for any purpose; since unconstitutionality dates from the time of its enactment, and not merely from the date of the decision so branding it… No one is bound to obey an unconstitutional law, and no courts are bound to enforce it. Since an unconstitutional law is void, the general principles follow that it imposes no duties, confers no rights, creates no office, bestows no power or authority on anyone, affords no protection and justifies no acts performed under it. No one is bound to obey an unconstitutional law and no courts are bound to enforce it."

It seems crystal clear that our form of government is a Constitutionally Federated Republic governed by the rule of law and that the supreme rule of law is our Constitution. The power of government is not self-serving but has been granted to them for the sole and exclusive purpose of protecting the lives, liberty and property of its citizenry. Read again the general rule, “No one is bound to obey an unconstitutional law, and no courts are bound to enforce it. Since an unconstitutional law is void, the general principles follow that it imposes no duties, confers no rights, creates no office, bestows no power or authority on anyone, affords no protection and justifies no acts performed under it. No one is bound to obey an unconstitutional law.”

Furthermore in Marbury v. Madison the court ruled:

"All laws, rules and practices which are repugnant to the Constitution are null and void."

A further reiteration of the premises or sentiments of the founding fathers of our government is by Justice William O. Douglas. It is an indication that people are perfectly within their rights and duty to rebel against the lawless acts of government. It is a just cause simply because it was the government which began to operate lawlessly not the people. We read the words of Justice William O. Douglas when he said:

"When a legislature undertakes to proscribe the exercise of a citizen's constitutional rights it acts lawlessly and the citizen can take matters into his own hands and proceed on the basis that such a law is no law at all."

The question in every era we are always reposed to answer is, Are we under the rule of Law or the rule of Men? Are we ruled by an arbitrary and capricious president, elitists or the huddled masses? If we are then who is there to protect our God-given, inalienable, human and natural rights? We all have varying degrees of tolerance… What is our individual choke point? When is enough simply enough? When will we get the idea that the powers that be have become the bullies of the neighborhood, they do not listen to reason, and you cannot ask them nicely. They really have no regard to our Constitution, neither their oaths nor the rule of law. They are just force, coercion and power. Our government is reduced to one on a quest for absolute power with an insatiable appetite for both power and money.

In summary, our government, historically and legally, constitutes a government with its basis predicated on the rule of Law not men. It is the primary duty of our government to protect the rights of its citizenry not to engineer an elitist view of the society to which a few men envision. Anything else that is outside the scope this designated restriction and limitation of power by their Constitutional authority is considered unjust or unjustified use of power. Our government is entirely a creature of our Constitution and derives its just and only powers from the Constitution which is the covenantal arrangement between those who govern and the consent of those governed. The government cannot abrogate the very thing that authorizes their respective powers. If the Constitution is not binding in one respect it is not binding in any respect. There becomes no constitutionally authorized government and the people are no longer obligated to any form of government the document does not thereby authorize. Wherein the government exceeds those imposed Constitutional limitations it behaves lawlessly as with unjust powers and confers no duty, no obligation and no obedience but is rather to be opposed and restrained by the people and her agents. This is their express right and duty of each and every American. I would like to close with the words of a former president, John F. Kennedy:

“Today, we need a nation of Minutemen, citizens who are not only prepared to take arms, but citizens who regard the preservation of freedom as the basic purpose of their daily life and who are willing to consciously work and sacrifice for that freedom.”

I hope this sheds a brief light upon our Country and the unique nature and form of our intended government was intended to take. I trust it sheds light upon the rights, duties and responsibilities of each and every citizen and also to those who are presently employed, appointed or work for various arms or branches of our governments. We the People need to know, feel and be assured that our government abides by the terms of our social contract, namely our Constitution and each respective State Constitution. If we ignore or abandon these principles set forth and defended with the fortunes, countless lives of our countrymen and precious blood that was spilt throughout our history, we should be truly counted as unworthy and undeserving of the noble name of being called ‘An American’. May God forgive our idleness, sloth and for not remaining vigilant while people have infiltrated our system of government, subverted it to a form alien and foreign to which we are unaccustomed and have forced, coerced, intimidated and harassed the citizens without just constitutional authority.

Don't forget to Like Freedom Outpost on Facebook, Google Plus, & Twitter. You can also get Freedom Outpost delivered to your Amazon Kindle device here.