When devising the Constitution in 1787, the Founding Fathers knew they needed a mechanism for further accountability, but was uncertain as to its eventual course. They had written into the Constitution a system of checks and balances with one primary gap: who governs the government? For, Article I, Section 5 says, “Each House (of Congress) may determine the Rules of its Proceedings”. This disciplining of itself became an invitation to corruption.
The Founding Fathers did not have a mechanism for holding Congress accountable beyond voting out individuals, self-discipline, and impeachment. John Adams spoke of this form of governance as being “made for a moral people,” and, “wholly inadequate to the government of any other”. Daniel Webster concurred with that assessment, saying, “It is hardly too strong to say that the Constitution was made to guard the people against dangers of good intentions,” and, “There are men in all ages who mean to govern well, but they mean to govern”. There needed to be a way to fix corruption.
The Founding Fathers needed the Constitution to preserve their principles long after they were dead and gone, so their newly formed country of freedom would not be replaced by tyrannical rulers that use power, prestige and wealth to oppress the people. Thomas Jefferson said, “In questions of power, then, let no man be heard [speaking] of confidence in man, but bind him down from mischief by the chains of the Constitution”. They suffered that under King George. George Washington’s address to the convention delegates suggested, “How can we defend our work,” if, “we offer what we ourselves disapprove?” Therefore, “Let us raise a standard to which the wise and honest can repair.” The Founding Fathers believed the Constitution was the answer to rein in evil.
Their solution of “repair” by “the wise and honest” alluded to some potential future need to invoke the Tenth Amendment, just as the closing in Article VII, “…done in convention,” and, “of the Independence of the United States” alludes to being founded on the Declaration. As it is now understood by law, if the government were to step outside their delegated authority, or even outside of the Constitution itself, then federal power would become reserved to the people.
They had no way of knowing what might bring this on, or what its outcome might be. All they knew is that there was a gap, and this was a way to fill that gap, even though there would no description of its process. The circumstance would have to define what it is, and, how it is.
The Founding Fathers of the United States were doing something that had never been done before. Theirs was an experiment. As an entrepreneur, I happen to know intimately the process of trailblazing something experimental is often like a delivery room: messy and loud. They did this before. Previously, they wrote Articles of Confederacy with a very important gap: no central government. This author believes this was on purpose – both to heal from scars left by the Revolutionary War, and to explore where national governing needs were the strongest.
Sometimes, just as it is true in law, one does not always know the end from the beginning. There is an inner trust, a hope in faith, that although one may be sure of their course by the knowledge of what is true and just, the outcome is sometimes left to the future to decide. In that respect, the Founding Fathers knew they had to pen something that would force the future down a certain type of path – even if they did not know what that path was. They defined the boundaries of that path by describing what it is not, and used words that specifically could be safely interpreted in any way applicable, but only in a healthy way.
Certain clauses were written as failsafe mechanisms. The Tenth Amendment’s undelegated or unauthorized federal powers were as a “trip wire” of sorts. The rights and freedoms of the people in the First Amendment were to be immutable. Extensions of the Magna Charta were sandwiched between them – in the other eight Bill of Rights. And, the Declaration of Independence was set as their precedent – itself founded on the Magna Charta (due process and habeas corpus), and the Court of Khisiarshu (right of a people to defend against tyrannical government).
This is the ideal framework of government envisioned by the Founding Fathers: people participation. It is purely profound in its articulation of ingenious triad relationships between the branches of the federal powers themselves, as well as between the federal, state, and people’s powers. This form, a multi-faceted and dynamic inter-relationship, corrects oversteps into each other’s area of authority by consent and assertion of those freedoms, rights, and powers guaranteed in the letter of guiding law.
The federal government cannot legally step into any position of authority for erasure or erosion of the Bill of Rights, because that is guaranteed to the people. The people have retracted their consent of the governed and asserted their powers to protect and defend their rights and freedoms under the Constitution. Now, we have tested whether the reserved federal powers of the people can survive a corrupt federal government that has refused to relinquish their authority. Will that test of power hold, or will we fall prey to an oppressive corporate-owned congress under Marshall law?
The people can do anything reasonable in their reserved powers to assert their authority for the restoration of a government of the Constitution and restitution for grievances against the people. Its language supports at least a federal recall election, but is not entirely silent on enforcement. The people cannot impeach without the due process to indict for infamous crimes by a grand jury first, according to the Fifth Amendment. Likewise, as the courts have determined, the states cannot initiate a federal recall because that is a conflict of powers. But, the people may enforce their powers using a governmental body to hold other government in contempt of its rules. A people-initiated recall has taken place, and is legally in effect, and enforced by this Will of the People Constitutional Authority.
We fought for the reserved federal powers of the people, and used the law to do it. In this case, the law recognized the established works by various groups on behalf of the people of the United States: Tea Party, Occupy, 99% Delegation, Main Street Suffrage, 99% Rise, and others. The people protested in the streets, but saw no effect. The people assembled a Continental Congress 2.0 and publicly presented their petition of grievances, but were ignored. The people notified the government and sought relief in the courts, but were refused for frivolous reasons. The people set up a federal recall according to applicable law, but the states rejected it. So, the people authorized Will of the People Constitutional Authority Board to hold governments in contempt of constitutional order, and issued a warrant for their removal and ordered grand jury to follow.
As such, there can be no going back. What has been done, has been done. The federal government has fallen from favor by right of the people, and Will of the People Constitutional Authority Board holds the federal powers of the government. We just simply need to enforce it by our mutual uncooperation in solidarity, as defying all national elections by our voice and choice and sending bots and spiders to monitor and post online any corrupt and illegal activities that would be hid from public view, while we refuse the compulsion to believe what is supposedly done by government for our benefit, until the recall and Constitution are affirmed.
We choose freedom. We choose to be free, be, like Ben Franklin said, it is hard to conceive a nation where we “live, move, and have our being,” without, “in some degree being influenced, guided, and governed”. But, as Thomas Jefferson said, “All tyranny needs to gain a foothold is for people of good conscience to remain silent”. We choose our Constitution affirmed by law of the people.
~· Defender of the Constitution
Will of the People Constitutional Authority