COMMENT: The next revolution draws dangerously close...why? Power hungry, self-serving, greedy anti-American elements have distorted, betrayed, and stolen freedom and it stands,there can be no option beyond revolution......Harry Riley

The American Revolution Revisited
By Chuck Baldwin's Son: Timothy Baldwin, Esq.
July 24, 2009

This column is archived at

[Note: My son, Tim, writes today's column. He is an attorney who received
his Juris Doctor degree from Cumberland School of Law in Birmingham,
Alabama. He is a former prosecutor for the Florida State Attorney's Office
and now owns his own private law practice. He is married to the former Miss
Jennifer Hanssen.]

Let's be honest, America is facing the same legal, moral and ethical
questions that our Founding generation did, especially regarding the issue
of "Who Is Sovereign in the United States." For our Founders, they fought,
bled and died on the principles that no man or government has the right to
rule over others contrary to their agreement (i.e. compact, constitution)
and contrary to the principles of natural law as revealed in the Creation of
God; that all men are born in nature with the power to govern themselves;
and that no Sovereign government, established lawfully by the consent of we
the people, can be usurped and controlled by any other entity. Thus, today
in America, the question once again comes down to "Who is Sovereign in the
United States?"

Today, there are 3 basic options for "Who is Sovereign in the United
States": (1) the Federal government, (2) the State governments or (3) We the
People. I feel confident in stating that most contemporary Americans believe
that the answer to this critical question is the Federal
government--especially as it concerns any practical effect on the power of
and over government. For years, Americans have been brainwashed though
public education, major media networks and politicians that ALL federal laws
are the "supreme law of the land" and that no state law or action to the
contrary is valid, citing Article 6, paragraph 2 of the US Constitution as
their "irrefutable" proof. Of course they are completely wrong: American
ideology and legal fact states that sovereignty rests with "we the people."
However, the question must be more narrowly defined.

That is, does the sovereign power of we the people rest with all the people
in the nation as one body, or does the power rest with the people THROUGH
the respective States? The answer to this question cannot be overstated,
because if the sovereign power rests with we the people collectively as one
body, then the States have absolutely no power and at the ratification of
the US Constitution, the States lost all powers originally granted to them
by their respective sovereigns (the people of that State). To the contrary,
if Sovereignty rests within or through their respective States, then the
States conversely have more power than what is being admitted today by the
"Centralists" of our day.

Through an honest study of the history and the context of the Articles of
Confederation, the US Constitution, the Constitutional Convention and
subsequent Ratification debates, the Federalist Papers, the Anti-Federalist
Papers, the rulings of subsequent US Supreme Court Rulings and the writings
of political philosophers and statesmen of the 1700s and 1800s, the
conclusion is undeniable and clear: We the People are the Sovereigns of the
States respectively and of the States United through our respective States.

Thus, the issue is not who is Sovereign, because we know that We the People
are sovereign in the US and that the Sovereigns of each State have never
ceded to the Federal government any power not expressly granted to it by the
Compact (the US Constitution). But rather, the issue is one of JURISDICTION:
in other words, who has the power to act on behalf of and in compliance with
the Sovereign? The issue of jurisdiction is so important because it
acknowledges that since the Sovereign has "paramount authority" in
government, any powers that are granted from the Sovereign to government are
to remain within that grant of authority. Put another way, the States can no
more grant authority to the Federal government against the will of the
Sovereign--the people--than the Executive branch of the Federal government
can give to the Judiciary branch the powers that we the people granted to it
alone. To deny that such a grant exists or conversely to ignore the
limitations placed on the governments by the Sovereign is to suggest that
tyranny is a lawful act and that it must be complied with. America's
founders would have considered such a political theory to be treasonous. Do
we the people think so seriously of the matter? According to recent events,
the answer to this question will likely be answered sooner than later.

As some of you may know, several states have and are passing legislation
regarding the independence and sovereignty of the people of their respective
states. ( ) More specifically, the
states of Tennessee and Montana have passed "Firearms Freedom Acts," which
have become law and which reaffirm their Sovereignty under the 10th
Amendment of the US Constitution. This law states that any firearms that are
made, sold and bought in that state are NOT subject to the Federal
regulations of firearms, because they are inherently internal affairs, which
exempt them from the commerce clause of the US Constitution.

As you would imagine, the Federal government, through its agency, the
Department of Justice, did not take too kindly to Tennessee's assertion of
jurisdiction over this matter and position that the federal laws did not
apply to the subject matter at hand. This federal opposition has become
known through the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives
(ATF), whereby they informed the firearms licensees in an "open letter" in
Tennessee that the recently enacted law (Firearms Freedom Act) does not
apply and is void and that they (the firearms licensees) must still obey and
submit to the federal laws, regardless of the State's statute. (See )

This ATF response tells us the following about the federal government's
ideology of Sovereignty: (1) the federal government does not recognize the
lawful and independent jurisdiction of the Sovereigns of Tennessee to
operate their internal affairs as they deem proper and fitting; (2) the
Sovereigns of Tennessee do not possess lawful jurisdiction to govern
themselves through constitutional means; (3) the federal government has the
power and authority to control the internal affairs of all States, as they
deem fit. Bottom line, the Federal government is Sovereign. With their
theory in mind, however, what commodity, what relationship, what contract,
what service, or what molecule in this entire country would not be subject
to their control and power?

This issue is the very same reason why the Colonists declared their
independence from Great Britain in 1776 and why Great Britain declared the
Colonies to be in a state of rebellion against the government. The conflict
was in fact the application of their Constitution: whether it be a "living"
constitution or whether it be "fundamental laws" based upon the intent and
will of the people. The fact is, it was the Great-Britain-view of their
constitution verses the American-view of their constitution that caused the
conflict between the crown and the colonies. One historian summarizes the
conflict this way:

"The contrast cannot be too strongly insisted upon. [The colonists], on the
one hand, believed that the British Constitution was fixed by 'the law of
God and nature,' and founded in the principles of law and reason so that
Parliament could not alter it, but [Great Britain believed] that 'the
constitution of this country has been always in a moving state, either
gaining or losing something,' and 'there are things even in Magna Charta
which are not constitutional now' and others which an act of Parliament
might change. Between two such conceptions of the powers of government
compromise was difficult to attain . . . Such differences in ideals were as
important causes of a breaking-up of the empire [of Great Britain] as more
concrete matters like oppressive taxation." (Claude Halstead Van Tyne, The
Causes of the War of Independence, Volume 1, [University of Michigan,
Houghton Mifflin Company, 1922], 235, 237).

Indeed, the issues of taxation during the 1760s and 1770s were only fruits
of the underlying issue, and that is, who is Sovereign in America. According
to Great Britain, the government had the power to impose its will on the
people of America despite the will of the colonies and despite the natural
laws governing the compact between the English people and their government.
In other words, the government believed that their constitution was
"living," giving the government power to impose its will on the people,
without the people's consent. The colonists, however, saw the matter to be a
usurpation of their God-given right to be governed by their consent and in
compliance with their constitution. The end result: the Sovereigns in each
colony seceded from the empire of Great Britain because of Great Britain's
refusal to follow their constitution.

Do Sovereigns throughout our States United not see the significance of the
issue we are facing today? Are we so blind to history that we cannot
compare this scenario to the very scenarios that led to the American
Revolution? Are we so ignorant as to the intents and purposes of the US
Constitution? Consider that the "supreme laws of the land" were never meant
to be carte blanche powers of the Federal government, but instead federal
laws were expressly limited by the terms of the compact between and for the
States, found in the Constitution. This concept of "supreme law of the land"
was expressed by a founding father, whom many would consider to be a
"centralist" in belief, Alexander Hamilton, in Federalist Paper #27:

"[T]hat the laws of the Confederacy [meaning, the United States of
America--yes, even Hamilton, along with many other founders, such as George
Washington, called the US Constitution a Confederacy, because they knew that
the nature and character of the compact of the US Constitution did not
change from the Articles of Confederation] as to the ENUMERATED and
LEGITIMATE objects of its jurisdiction, will become the SUPREME LAW of the
land, to the observance . . . in each State, will be bound by the sanctity
of an oath. Thus the legislatures, courts, and magistrates, of the
respective members, will be incorporated into the operation of the national

Hamilton's legal position concerning the limited power of the federal
government and the "supreme law of the land" was the consensus of the
founders, the States and we the people. Nowhere in America's founding was
there the notion that the supreme laws of the land were anything contrary to
the compact FOR the States. The supreme laws of the land are simply those
"fundamental laws" that we the people have created and imposed upon the
government to follow and uphold.

Of course, the question has been raised over the past 150 years of "who has
the power to determine whether or not the Federal government has usurped
their constitutional authority?" The popular answer is (wrongfully), the US
Supreme Court. God forbid that the Sovereigns of each State must wait and
rely on 9 federal judges to make rulings of this nature before a State would
have any legal rights or justification to act in accordance with the will of
their Sovereigns. Indeed, the ATF interpreted the Constitution unilaterally
without the opinion of the US Supreme Court and without opinion or order
denied the constitutionality of Tennessee's Firearms Freedom Act. The
Sovereigns in each state have the same power, and the historical and legal
evidence is plentiful. Consider Thomas Jefferson's position:

"[T]he States should be watchful to note every material usurpation on their
rights; denounce them as they occur in the most peremptory terms; to protest
against them as wrongs to which our present submission shall be considered,
not as acknowledgments or precedents of right, but as a temporary yielding
to the lesser evil, until their accumulation shall overweigh that of
separation." (Thomas Jefferson and John P. Foley, ed., The Jeffersonian
Cyclopedia, A Comprehensive Collection of the Views of Thomas Jefferson,
[New York and London: Funk & Wagnalls Co., 1900], 133)

I will not attempt to persuade the reader at this point on the fallacious
position that only the US Supreme Court can make a determination of
constitutional actions. However, for those who would argue that the US
Supreme Court is in fact the only legal means by which a State can say "no"
to the federal government, then I believe that such a person has reached the
point of voluntary slavery, and such a person is dangerous to the concepts
of federalism, American-sovereignty, and constitutional limits and freedom,
as expressed by thousands of the most influential men in our history. And
such a person has accepted only those political means of redress whereby the
Sovereigns of each State drudge through the treacherous mud of tyranny and
get absolutely nowhere.

What we are seeing today, and have seen for over 100 years in America, is
the usurpation of the federal government over Sovereignty--we the
people--and over Jurisdiction--the States. While this article cannot begin
to expound in depth the true character and nature of the US Constitution, a
study of history reveals that the US Constitution was an agreement between
the Sovereigns of each State whereby they acceded to give up only certain
parts of their sovereignty for the "more perfect union" of the people within
those States. As with any sovereign people or government, accession may be
limited to whatever means and ways necessary to protect the freedom of that
society. This is in fact what the Colonists did in 1776 when declaring
independence from Great Britain, what the States did in 1781 when ratifying
the Articles of Confederation, and what the States did in 1787 when
ratifying the US Constitution. It was the Sovereigns, through their
respective States, who declared their natural rights under God, who secured
their natural rights through independence from governments and who expressed
that any act outside of their consent is tyranny.

When this recognition resounds in the hearts and minds of the people, as our
Declaration of Independence states, "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." Do you really think
after only 11 years from the signing of the Declaration of Independence that
those same people who risked everything for independence from those
"living-constitutionalists" in Great Britain and who believed in the
principles seen in the Articles of Confederation would have completely
renounced their understanding of a Confederacy and Federalism and would have
resigned the same and delegated all of their powers that they fought and
died to secure for each State and for their citizens? If you think so silly
a notion, you severely impose injustice upon the intelligence and intentions
of our founders.

However, the record is clear that the Sovereigns of each State never ceded
to the federal government powers not expressly vested to it and never waived
the ability to reclaim that power through their proper channels--the
States--the same channels by which the US Constitution was ratified.
Consider the Sovereigns' voice in the State of Virginia in 1787:

"We the delegates of the people of Virginia . . . Do, in the name and in
behalf of the people of Virginia, declare and make known, that the powers
granted under the constitution, being derived from the people of the United
States, may be resumed by them whensoever the same shall be perverted to
their injury or oppression, and that every power not granted thereby,
remains with them and at their will; that therefore no right, of any
denomination, can be cancelled, abridged, restrained or modified by the
congress, by the senate or house of representatives acting in any capacity,
by the president or any department, or officer of the United States, EXCEPT
PURPOSES." (Emphasis added.)

However, the Federal government today does not recognize the Sovereignty in
the people of the respective states; it does not recognizes the respective
States' jurisdiction over all matters not expressly delegated to the federal
government; and it does not seem to acknowledge State Sovereignty under the
10th amendment of the US Constitution. Given their evident intent and
purposes to continually grow in power and to continually oppress and
suppress the sovereignty of we the people, against our respective states,
the question becomes, how will they be made to understand this? It is of
course up to the Sovereigns in each state to answer this question. And we
see the answers arriving through State laws such as the Firearms Freedom

The time has come in America where to be free necessarily means to resist
status quo and federal usurpation and to actively change the course and
philosophy being shoved down our throats. There really is no middle ground
any more. This is not a matter of politics anymore. This is not a matter of
Republican and Democrat. This is a matter of FREEDOM, as much so as were the
matters of 1775 and 1776. It is staring you in the face, daring you to make
a move. May we never be guilty of causing, whether by our apathy,
indifference, laziness or comfort, this nation to lose the freedoms that our
founders attempted to secure with infinite pains and labors. We the people
must once again reassert our Sovereignty in this country and the States must
recognize and act upon their God-ordained role as Freedom protectors and
tyranny resisters.

*If you appreciate this column and want to help me distribute these
editorial opinions to an ever-growing audience, donations may now be made by
credit card, check, or Money Order. Use this link:

(c) Chuck Baldwin


This email editorial cannot be considered Spam as long as the sender
includes contact information and a method of removal.

To subscribe, click on this link and follow the instructions:

To unsubscribe, click on this link and follow the instructions:

Chuck Baldwin's commentaries are copyrighted and may be republished,
reposted, or emailed providing the person or organization doing so does not
charge for subscriptions or advertising and that the column is copied intact
and that full credit is given and that Chuck's web site address is included.

Editors or Publishers of publications charging for subscriptions or
advertising who want to run these columns must contact Chuck Baldwin for
permission. Radio or television Talk Show Hosts interested in scheduling an
interview with Chuck should contact

Readers may also respond to this column via snail mail. The postal address
is P.O. Box 37070, Pensacola, Florida. When responding, please include your
name, city and state. And, unless otherwise requested, all respondents will
be added to the Chuck Wagon address list.

Please visit Chuck's web site at

Views: 41

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

I can't wait for sept. 12th when my wife and I show up in Washington D.C. amongst the millions prostesting against our goverment.
I knew some of this. But it adds a lot of information EVERY CITIZEN should know.
I wish I could donate but I am on disability.
I heard the Government plans to do away with automatic cost of living increases for us - SS recipients. In a way I am glad as with the last increase we are above the poverty level by 515 dollars. However people who are not on a lot of medication do need this increase as everything else goes up!!!!
I would like to see government officials and workers TRY to get by on 1601 dollars (after almost 200 taken out for medicare). Out of that we have to pay about 200 dollars per month for meds. I would like to see the government officials live on about 21000 per year. Then they would know what regular people need - Not money but the opportunity to make and keep it.
I may be dependent on the Government for my sustenance but do not want it to take over my decision making and tell me what to do in my own home, city and state!!!
The people are what make this country great; not the government. We need to take back the power the Constitution gives us. When we do the Country I hope will be returned to its original state. Freedom for all citizens!
God bless America and all who serve her citizens!
Excellent, but wow! One helluva read.
We pray this prayer with you USPatriot and God bless you and all of us that it is printed here and we are able to be united in this prayer as it goes up to our Father in Heaven. We are crying out to God and He hears us.
I second your reply and join with you in your prayer.
Praise God for men like Timothy Baldwin, Chuck Baldwin and Harry Riley who know the history of these United States of America and who care enough to educate the citizens of America to America's true and pure history.
Here, here, let all that would hear it, understand this message. The time is now to let those elite in power know they no longer have favor in the eyes of the citizens that have granted them the responsibility to guard our freedoms, no more. We the people must rally our neighbors and our local representatives, to rise up and restore the sovereignty each and ever citizen holds. We must empower each State we live to speak out about the treason being committed by our own states representatives against the very people they where to represent. Together we must get the word out and begin to demand accountability of those that vote knowing nothing of what effect it has for all. It's not a wonder the Politic continues to fool the masses with media owned and edited by them. The worst is how arrogant each states representative would imagine none of us have the power to hold them accountable. I'd guess it's because the media and their courts keep saying we, the citizen, cannot! To continue to usurp our very freedoms to satisfy their greed for power has made them very careless. This too has been making other nations more bold and dangerous. God bless you Tim Baldwin, you could not have come forward at a better time and a most needed time with this writing. It's time to take this battle to those that would think we, the voting public (the legal ones that is) are being too trite over trivial issues (birth certs) of today and that the continual usurping of the freedoms of the citizen of the United States will continue un-checked. They must be held accountable and be made aware that many of us feel and remember that our Freedoms fought for and died for by so many will not be in vain nor continue to be unnoticed. I will support your efforts to the best of my abilities. God Bless and keep you and those you touch, safe and in His Grace.



Old Rooster created this Ning Network.

This effort is focused on sacrifice to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies foreign and domestic.

Fox News

Tech Notes

Thousands of Deadly Islamic Terror Attacks Since 9/11


1. Click on State Groups tab at the top of the page.
2. Find your State Flag
3. Click on Flag.
4. Look for link to join Your State Group near the top of the State Groups page.
5. Click on it.

Follow the Prompts

How to post "live" URL in posts at PFA............. Adding URLs in blog posts that are not "live" is a waste of everyone's time.....
Here's how....if anyone has better guidance send to me.....
First........type your text entry into the post block to include typing or paste the URL you want us to view........when finished with the text, highlight and copy the URL in the text.......then click the "add hyperlink" tool in the B, I, U box just above the text entry, after clicking, a window will open asking for the URL...paste the URL in the box and click "OK". You have now made the URL "live" shows some code before the post is published, it goes away when you "publish post".......


© 2020   Created by Old Rooster.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service