The intersection of our nation's founding, the Constitution, and the Christian faith is sort of a topic of interest on which I've thought a significant amount and tried to understand according to the actual history of the events. I was recently in (yet another) conversation where I found it necessary to outline the basic structure of our Republic and how it works and the authority inherent in our governmental structures and whence it derives. Below are my contributions to that discussion as well as a conversation I had with the latest version of ChatGPT regarding the issues described. It is placed here both for posterity as well as for future reference as I found it helpful.
---
My Contributions
Comment 1
Under the Constitution as written, the "governed" are those who have been elected and appointed who are restricted in their authority and actions by "we the people" through the instrumentality of the contract which we have established with one another. To those who are elected, appointed, or otherwise placed into office, certain authority to act on our (collective) behalf is granted and they are restricted to acting only under that authority. There are actually penalties for acting outside of that authority "under color of law" that have been established by a rightfully constituted administrative body (ie, congress and signed by the President). Usurpations and accretions outside the narrowly defined authority are void and absent legitimate authority. And yes, each individual gets to decide whether or not something is "inside" or "outside" that authority, though their decision can be questioned and over ruled by a jury of their peers who can either acknowledge the validity of the law and convict those who contravene a valid and legitimate law, OR the jury can NULLIFY and declare the law itself NULL AND VOID and of no effect IN THE CASE PRESENTED TO THEM. Contrary to the lies promulgated by many, there is
NO presumption that a law on the books is legitimate and even if legitimate, it is not binding over the jury who has ultimate and supreme authority as direct representatives acting in the place of the people who are over and above the entire system, to declare a law illegitimate and acquit in the case presented to them. A judge (or justice) in the appellate and supreme courts can do so in a manner that is binding on the legal system more broadly than an individual case.
These are the facts, though we have been bullied and gaslit so as to disbelieve and reject them of our own accord and allow usurpations and accretions contrary to the legitimate authority established as the law of the land in our nation. The issue is, now that we have through several generations apathetically allowed these accretions and usurpations to go unchecked for so long as to constitute a new regime that, without a violent revolution, but nonetheless with a slow and steady attack on the foundations and established order, has effectively overthrown what was rightly ordained and established in the Constitution for the United States, has it, in fact, become legitemized? Or do the FORMAL principles of our nation's constitution still apply even though materially and substantially they have been usurped and overthrown and the new regime acquiesced to for so long?
Response
So to be clear. What you are saying is that "we the people" are the government and those who serve in government are the governed. And every individual gets to decide what is constitutionally in bounds or out of bounds. But a jury can override that individual's judgment. So the supreme governing authority is the jury. The members of the executive, legislative, and judicial branches of government are governed by "we the people," or when push comes to shove a panel of twelve members of "we the people." And this is "God's plan" for our land and people.
Is that a fair summary?
My Rejoinder
As to whether, "this is 'God's plan' for our land and people," I make no assertion other than to say that's how it is - and whether the system was allowed to be in place as God's punishment or His blessing, it is the system that He permitted the framers to establish. Though, He has also permitted the usurpations and accretions of authority that have happened since to overturn the regime established by the framers and establish an administrative state unmoored from it's founding and largely unaccountable to those who are, on paper, over and above it all as soverign. So, in the sense that history has brought us here and God has not intervened to prohibit it, I suppose, "this is 'God's plan' for our land." Beyond that, I cannot say.
As to the rest, I would largely agree with some slight clarification/nuance:
The "supreme governing authority" in determining the legitimacy of "the State's" use use of the sword for the punishment of evil is the jury.
The office bearers in the executive, legislative, and judicial branches are "public servants". The majority of the Constitution explicitly directs and acts as instructions and commands for how they will act, behave, and carry out their office - so YES, they are "the governed" under the Constitution. Those officeholders were put there as servants of the citizens to administer those things that, by contract through the establishment of the Constitution and assented to through a citizen's continuation of citizenship (kind of like a click-through EULA), the citizenry has placed into their hands having decided that those items need to be administered for "the common good" and cannot be handled directly by citizens (or the individual states).
INASMUCHAS the the contract among the citizens (i.e. Constitution - state or federal) EXPLICITLY transfers to the state and federal government (or other bodies, such as Sheriffs, etc.), the ability to regulate the behavior and actions of the general citizenry, they are PERMITTED to do so (but only insofar as the charter explicitly permits). Even when they do exercise this authority, there is reserved the "escape hatch" that a jury of peers can over-rule the legitimacy or application of a given law IN THE SPECIFIC CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE BEFORE THEM, nullifying and declaring the law itself to be illegitimate (but such determination would apply only to the case under consideration), overruling the applicability to the current case, or determining that application of that rule/law in the specific instance is "unjust." Alternatively, they could determine that the application of the law and punishment under the law to be just and reasonable and in keeping with the needs of the community.
Being those who have contracted to establish the system (or, consent to be governed under its terms by continued citizenship and residency in the case of those born after the establishment of the contract), the citizens stand over the system. This is in large part why "ballot initiatives" to change the Constitution (usually at the State level) or institute regulations (also at the state level) BYPASS the legislature and the governor of the state. It is also the reason that the Constitutional Republic we (supposedly) live under was LEGITIMATELY established as the successor to the Articles of Confederation even though the Articles were not properly amended according to the rubrics established in the Articles. Finally, it is largely a reason why ratification of the current Constitution was done through citizen referendum rather than simple adoption by the Continental Congress or even through state legislators - namely, to make the federal Constitution an entity created by (and thus fully subject to) the people themselves.
The design of the original Constitution was the positive statement of authority and rights granted to the institutional structures created by the document. The addition of the Bill of Rights, while born of a right concern that the entity would take on a life of its own and usurp further authority than was granted to it by it's creator[s], confused this issue and created the implied ability for the entity "ordained and established" by "we the people" had powers and abilities that were "implied" or unstated in the instrument itself - which is, in large part - how we got where we are.
ChatGPT Conversation
User:Summarize the following into a single paragraph:
the "supreme governing authority" in determining the legitimacy of "the State's" use use of the sword for the punishment of evil is the jury.
The office bearers in the executive, legislative, and judicial branches are "public servants". The majority of the Constitution explicitly directs and acts as instructions and commands for how they will act, behave, and carry out their office - so YES, they are "the governed" under the Constitution. Those officeholders were put there as servants of the citizens to administer those things that, by contract through the establishment of the Constitution and assented to through a citizen's continuation of citizenship (kind of like a click-through EULA), the citizenry has placed into their hands having decided that those items need to be administered for "the common good" and cannot be handled directly by citizens (or the individual states).
INASMUCHAS the the contract among the citizens (i.e. Constitution - state or federal) EXPLICITLY transfers to the state and federal government (or other bodies, such as Sheriffs, etc.), the ability to regulate the behavior and actions of the general citizenry, they are PERMITTED to do so (but only insofar as the charter explicitly permits). Even when they do exercise this authority, there is reserved the "escape hatch" that a jury of peers can over-rule the legitimacy or application of a given law IN THE SPECIFIC CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE BEFORE THEM, nullifying and declaring the law itself to be illegitimate (but such determination would apply only to the case under consideration), overruling the applicability to the current case, or determining that application of that rule/law in the specific instance is "unjust." Alternatively, they could determine that the application of the law and punishment under the law to be just and reasonable and in keeping with the needs of the community.
Being those who have contracted to establish the system (or, consent to be governed under its terms by continued citizenship and residency in the case of those born after the establishment of the contract), the citizens stand over the system. This is in large part why "ballot initiatives" to change the Constitution (usually at the State level) or institute regulations (also at the state level) BYPASS the legislature and the governor of the state. It is also the reason that the Constitutional Republic we (supposedly) live under was LEGITIMATELY established as the successor to the Articles of Confederation even though the Articles were not properly amended according to the rubrics established in the Articles. Finally, it is largely a reason why ratification of the current Constitution was done through citizen referendum rather than simple adoption by the Continental Congress or even through state legislators - namely, to make the federal Constitution an entity created by (and thus fully subject to) the people themselves.
The design of the original Constitution was the positive statement of authority and rights granted to the institutional structures created by the document. The addition of the Bill of Rights, while born of a right concern that the entity would take on a life of its own and usurp further authority than was granted to it by it's creator[s], confused this issue and created the implied ability for the entity "ordained and established" by "we the people" had powers and abilities that were "implied" or unstated in the instrument itself - which is, in large part - how we got where we are.
ChatGPT:The supreme authority in determining the legitimacy of the State's use of punitive power lies with the jury. Public servants in the executive, legislative, and judicial branches are governed by the Constitution, which explicitly directs their conduct. These officeholders are servants of the citizens, administering tasks deemed necessary for the common good that cannot be directly handled by the citizenry or individual states. The Constitution explicitly grants certain regulatory powers to state and federal governments, but a jury can overrule the legitimacy or application of a law in specific cases, ensuring justice is served. The citizens, having established or consented to the system through continued citizenship, hold authority over it. This principle is evident in ballot initiatives and the ratification of the Constitution through citizen referenda, demonstrating that the federal Constitution is created by and subject to the people. The original Constitution granted specific powers to governmental structures, while the Bill of Rights was added to prevent the usurpation of further authority, though it introduced the notion of implied powers.
User:Evaluate the assertions presented in light of the historical record giving added weight to interpretations contained in the Federalist Papers and positions espoused by the founders and lesser weight to assertions made in the 20th and 21st century.
ChatGPT:The assertions presented align with some foundational principles and interpretations found in historical documents and positions of the Founders, particularly those expressed in the Federalist Papers, though there are some areas that require nuance.
- Jury as Supreme Authority:
- The assertion that the jury is the supreme governing authority in determining the legitimacy of punitive actions reflects a long-standing principle in American jurisprudence. This aligns with Alexander Hamilton's views in Federalist No. 83, where he emphasized the importance of trial by jury in criminal cases as a fundamental protection against arbitrary government actions. However, the assertion that a jury can nullify laws is more complex. Jury nullification has historical roots but is not an explicit constitutional right and remains a contentious issue.
- Public Servants and the Constitution:
- The idea that officeholders are public servants directed by the Constitution is consistent with James Madison's views in Federalist No. 57, where he discussed the concept of government officials being accountable to the people and bound by the rules established by the Constitution. The assertion that these officeholders are "the governed" under the Constitution emphasizes the principle of a government accountable to its citizens, a core tenet of republicanism.
- Citizen Authority and Constitutional Amendments:
- The notion that citizens hold ultimate authority over the system and that constitutional changes can be driven by direct citizen action aligns with the Founders' emphasis on popular sovereignty. This is evident in the preamble of the Constitution, which begins with "We the People." The process of amending the Constitution through state conventions, as opposed to solely through legislative action, reflects the Founders' intent to involve the citizenry directly in significant changes, as seen in the ratification of the original Constitution and later amendments.
- Contract Theory and Governmental Authority:
- The idea of the Constitution as a contract among citizens, granting specific powers to the government, is consistent with John Locke's social contract theory, which heavily influenced the Founders. The principle that the government only possesses powers explicitly granted by the Constitution aligns with the Tenth Amendment, reserving unspecified powers to the states or the people.
- Bill of Rights and Implied Powers:
- The addition of the Bill of Rights was indeed intended to safeguard individual liberties and prevent government overreach, a point strongly advocated by anti-Federalists and acknowledged by Federalists as necessary for securing ratification. However, the concern about implied powers, as expressed, is more nuanced. Federalist No. 44, written by Madison, defended the Necessary and Proper Clause, arguing that implied powers were essential for the effective functioning of the government. The tension between explicit and implied powers has been a persistent theme in constitutional interpretation.
- Historical Context and Modern Interpretations:
- While modern interpretations and judicial rulings have expanded the scope of federal power, often invoking the Commerce Clause and other provisions, these developments reflect an evolving understanding of the Constitution in response to changing societal needs. The balance between maintaining the original intent of the Founders and adapting to contemporary challenges continues to be a central debate in constitutional law.
In summary, the assertions presented align closely with foundational principles espoused by the Founders and interpretations in the Federalist Papers, emphasizing jury authority, citizen sovereignty, and the limited, enumerated powers of government. However, the complexity of implied powers and the evolving nature of constitutional interpretation add layers of nuance that must be considered in evaluating these claims.
User:Outline the history of jury nullification citing as much as possible the views of those involved in the early formation of the country and the immediately succeeding generation.
ChatGPT:History of Jury Nullification in the United StatesColonial Era and Early America:- Colonial Roots:
-
Bushel's Case (1670): An early and significant case in English law where a jury refused to convict William Penn and William Mead of unlawful assembly, despite the judge's instructions. This case established the right of juries to deliver a verdict according to their conscience and set a precedent that carried over to the American colonies.
-
John Peter Zenger Trial (1735): In colonial America, Zenger, a printer, was charged with seditious libel against the governor of New York. Despite the judge’s instructions, the jury acquitted Zenger, establishing an early American instance of jury nullification and setting a precedent for freedom of the press.
Founding Era:- Views of the Founders:
-
Thomas Jefferson: Strongly supported the role of juries in protecting citizens from government overreach. He viewed jury nullification as a crucial check on the judiciary and executive branches. Jefferson wrote, "I consider trial by jury as the only anchor ever yet imagined by man, by which a government can be held to the principles of its constitution."
-
John Adams: Believed in the importance of juries. He asserted that jurors have the right to determine both the facts and the law in a case, emphasizing the jury’s role as a safeguard against potential tyranny. Adams famously said, "It is not only his right but his duty... to find the verdict according to his own best understanding, judgment, and conscience, though in direct opposition to the direction of the court."
-
Alexander Hamilton: Defended the idea that juries should act according to their understanding of the law, as seen in his defense of John Peter Zenger. Hamilton's arguments during this trial underscored the jury's role in upholding justice even against judicial instructions.
Early Republic:- Federalist and Anti-Federalist Views:
-
Federalists: Generally supported the judiciary's authority but recognized the jury's importance as a check on government power. In Federalist No. 83, Hamilton highlighted the jury's role in criminal cases as a fundamental safeguard of liberty.
-
Anti-Federalists: Strong advocates for jury nullification, seeing it as a defense against oppressive laws. They feared a strong central government and viewed the jury as a crucial barrier to potential abuses of power.
19th Century:- Abolitionist Movement:
-
Fugitive Slave Act Cases: Northern juries often used nullification to acquit individuals accused of violating the Fugitive Slave Act, reflecting widespread moral opposition to the law. This period saw numerous instances of jury nullification as a form of protest against unjust laws.
-
Lysander Spooner: An abolitionist and legal theorist who argued that juries have the right and duty to judge the law itself. Spooner's writings, particularly "An Essay on the Trial by Jury" (1852), were influential in promoting the idea of jury nullification.
20th Century and Beyond:- Prohibition Era:
- During Prohibition, juries frequently nullified laws against alcohol consumption, contributing to the eventual repeal of Prohibition. This demonstrated the jury's role in expressing public dissent against unpopular legislation.
- Civil Rights Movement:
- Jury nullification played a role in the Civil Rights Movement, with some Southern juries acquitting defendants in racially charged cases, highlighting the complex interplay between jury nullification and social justice.
Modern Views and Legal Context:- Judicial and Legislative Responses:
-
Sparf v. United States (1895): The Supreme Court ruled that federal judges are not required to inform juries about their right to nullify, thus limiting the explicit acknowledgment of this power.
-
Modern Judicial Practice: Judges typically do not instruct juries about the right to nullify, and defense attorneys are often prohibited from arguing for nullification directly.
Conclusion:Jury nullification has deep roots in American history, reflecting the jury's role as a check on governmental power and unjust laws. From the early colonial era through the founding period and into the modern age, jury nullification has been a contentious yet pivotal aspect of American legal tradition. The views of the Founders and subsequent generations underscore its significance as a safeguard of liberty and justice.
User:Outline Madison's view of implied powers based on "the Necessary and Proper" clause, especially with reference to Federalist No. 44 highlighting what limitations Madison saw in the application of this idea. Include also any counter arguments made by his contemporaries.
ChatGPT:Madison's View of Implied Powers Based on "the Necessary and Proper" ClauseFederalist No. 44:- Madison's Defense of the Necessary and Proper Clause:
- In Federalist No. 44, James Madison argued that the Necessary and Proper Clause was essential for the functioning of the federal government. He contended that without this clause, the government would be unable to effectively carry out its enumerated powers.
- Madison emphasized that the clause was meant to be a means to an end, allowing the government to execute its expressly granted powers. He argued that it was impractical and impossible to list every specific power needed to implement the enumerated powers, hence the need for implied powers.
- He stated, "No axiom is more clearly established in law, or in reason, than that wherever the end is required, the means are authorized."
- Limitations and Safeguards:
- Madison was cautious about potential abuses of the Necessary and Proper Clause. He argued that the clause should not be interpreted to grant unlimited power to the federal government.
- He insisted that the powers implied by the clause must be tied directly to the execution of the government's enumerated powers. The clause could not be used to justify actions that were not connected to these specific powers.
- Madison pointed out that the Constitution itself provided checks against the abuse of implied powers. The structure of the federal system, including the separation of powers and the system of checks and balances, was designed to prevent any one branch from overstepping its bounds.
- Furthermore, Madison highlighted that the election of representatives by the people served as a direct check on the misuse of governmental power. The people could hold their representatives accountable if they felt the government was overreaching its authority.
Counterarguments by Contemporaries:- Anti-Federalist Concerns:
- Anti-Federalists were particularly wary of the Necessary and Proper Clause, fearing that it would lead to an expansion of federal power at the expense of state sovereignty and individual liberties.
- They argued that the clause was too vague and open to broad interpretation, potentially giving the federal government carte blanche to expand its powers beyond those explicitly enumerated in the Constitution.
- Patrick Henry:
- Patrick Henry was a vocal critic of the Necessary and Proper Clause. He argued that it would allow Congress to legislate on virtually any issue, thus undermining the powers reserved to the states.
- Henry feared that the clause would be used to justify the creation of a powerful central government that could encroach upon the rights of the states and the people.
- Thomas Jefferson:
- Although not an Anti-Federalist, Thomas Jefferson shared concerns about the broad interpretation of the Necessary and Proper Clause. He believed in a strict constructionist approach to the Constitution.
- Jefferson argued that powers not explicitly granted to the federal government by the Constitution should be reserved to the states or the people, as stated in the Tenth Amendment. He was wary of the potential for implied powers to expand federal authority.
- George Mason:
- George Mason, another prominent Anti-Federalist, criticized the Necessary and Proper Clause for its potential to lead to federal overreach. He advocated for a Bill of Rights to explicitly safeguard individual liberties against potential abuses of federal power.
Conclusion:James Madison's defense of the Necessary and Proper Clause in Federalist No. 44 focused on the necessity of implied powers for the effective functioning of the federal government, while also emphasizing the limitations and safeguards inherent in the constitutional framework. His contemporaries, particularly the Anti-Federalists, raised significant concerns about the potential for abuse and the expansion of federal power, highlighting the ongoing debate over the interpretation and application of implied powers in the American constitutional system.