Summary
âž¡ The text discusses the authority of the federal government and states in the United States regarding immigration. It explains that while the federal government has the power to create immigration laws and deport individuals, states have the right to protect themselves from illegal immigrants. However, states cannot make immigration laws or deport individuals, and must cooperate with federal agencies to handle immigration issues. The text also emphasizes the importance of vetting immigrants to ensure they will be beneficial to the country and not pose a threat.
âž¡ The text discusses the use of taxation as a tool to discourage certain behaviors, using the historical example of a $10 tax on the importation of slaves. The author argues that this was not an attempt to profit from slavery, but rather a strategy to reduce the activity. The text also covers the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus, which ensures a person’s right to a trial, and can only be suspended in cases of rebellion or invasion. The author also mentions his own books and the process of getting them published.
âž¡ The text discusses the O.J. Simpson trial, the concept of crime families, and the legal principles of bills of attainder and ex post facto laws. It explains that bills of attainder, which are legislative punishments, are not allowed due to the separation of powers. Ex post facto laws, which make something illegal after it has been done, are also not allowed. The text also mentions the author’s history book and discusses the concept of common law and rebellion against a government.
âž¡ The text discusses the historical role of tariffs and income tax in funding the federal government, and suggests that much of current federal spending is unnecessary. It also touches on the issue of presidential pardons, arguing that they should be limited and that they don’t protect against civil or state charges. The text further discusses the role of Congress in managing the country’s finances, suggesting that the Federal Reserve’s role is unconstitutional. Lastly, it emphasizes the importance of transparency in government spending and the prohibition of titles of nobility or special privileges.
âž¡ The speaker discusses Obama’s acceptance of the Nobel Peace Prize and questions its constitutionality. They also mention a change in their program’s schedule and express concerns about the U.S. funding Ukraine, suggesting it might be linked to recent wars. The speaker ends by promoting their blog and asking for support.
Transcript
Hopefully we’ll see people start coming in. Don’t see anybody in the comment section yet. What we’re going through right now, and most, most of our listens are later on anyway. Not that big of a deal. Just one of those days where a few other things are going on at the same time. We had to move things around. So Article 1, Section 9 is where we left off. We’ve been doing the last few weeks, election stuff, Electoral college. We get back with where we were. So here we go. Article 1, Section 9, United States Constitution. And real quick, you know, I want to, I want to thank all of you guys that are out there.
Appreciate you. Douglasvgibbs.com all right, here we go. The migration or importation of such persons as any estates now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by Congress. Prior to your 1808, this was a clause regarding the Atlantic slave trade. Now, immigration is also pulled in here, and I’ll get to that. But it’s funny because when I get to talking to people in mainstream constitutional law, people don’t understand all of this stuff. Well, there’s another compromise for slavery. The compromises for slavery were not compromises for slavery. The compromises in the Constitution that we think were for slavery are actually built around other ideas.
We have to understand that, first of all, the founding fathers believe that slavery would be gone in America within their lifetimes. Despite what you’re being told by certain media outlets or certain persons out there, they were not trying to entrench slavery. They were not trying to give into slavery or help slavery along. Even those who were not abolitionists understood that slavery was on its way out. Part of the reason is because when you spilled a system on liberty, slavery not going to last long in it. Secondly, they were seeing new technologies begin to develop that were changing the face of what slavery was.
It was changing the way products were being produced, way raw materials were being being obtained and, you know, sent out and all this other stuff. It was basically business was moving from the fields. When it came to a number of people, you needed from the fields to the factories, because in the fields now they were. Equipment was being, you know, Eli Whitney’s cotton gin be one of them. So, and, and granted it’s after this time period, but there’s things going on. They knew, first of all that slavery was going to be gone. Two, because of the abolitionist attitude in the country, they knew slavery was going to be gone.
So please understand that any of the compromises regarding slavery, you see, was not to entrench slavery, was not to appease slavery. It was to get those states to be a part of the Union. Because there was various reasons way beyond slavery that they needed to be part of the Union. And even those states knew slavery was going to be gone. But they were willing to take these temporary. These temporary compromises. Now, this particular compromise isn’t really a compromise. What it was aimed at doing was getting rid of the Atlantic slave trade. Good afternoon. Yes, we’re early.
By half an hour. Safira is in the chat room, says hello. Hopefully everybody else starts showing up. And like I said, those who show up in about half an hour, they can always go back. Watch this from the beginning. All right? So they know slavery is on its way out. So once again, despite what you hear, despite what you’re taught, despite what the professor’s saying, these clauses have to do with slavery were not done to entrench slavery or to help slavery. It was done to make sure that these states, A, were willing to sign the Constitution, be a part of the Union, and B, it was actually setting the stage for getting rid of slavery.
So what this is Atlantic slave trade. And basically what it’s saying is 20 years down the road, this Atlantic slave trade is going to be outlawing the United States. Importing slaves from outside the country will be illegal. So when I’ll read it again, and then I’m gonna break it down a little bit, because there’s more to it than what it says, the migration or importation of such persons. Migration is a movement of people. Importationism is the movement of people, but they’re being imported like a product. And so that second part has to do with slavery. The first part really doesn’t.
Now, some people argue, well, migration meant over land, and importation meant by sea, perhaps. But based on what I’ve read, this was an attempt to handle all the business A person’s coming in the country, be it slaves or other. Migration, immigration. And it’s interesting because when I talk to people in constitutional law and they’ll tell me, well, the federal government has the authority over immigration because of Article 1, Section 8, where it says to establish a uniform rule of naturalization. Naturalization has nothing to do with immigration. It’s what happens after immigration. Naturalization is the process to become a citizen through the law.
So where in the constitution of the federal government have authority over immigration? This is it. The migration of such persons as any of the states now existing shall think proper commit. In other words, immigration at the time was up to each state. The migration of persons into the state, be it slaves or immigrants, was up to the states. This is saying that as of the year 1. 1808. 1808, that the States would give that part of that authority to the federal government, that Congress could pass law prohibiting certain persons from coming into the country, part of that Atlantic slave trade.
And the law was was signed by Jefferson in April of 1807 and then went into effect in January of 1808. So once again, as people are showing up, I want to reiterate something I said earlier because I will make sure everybody is up to date on this. So. So our good friend Ron had something come up where he will not be available past four. And so he asked me if we could move this up from 3 to 4. So that didn’t interfere with his time. Then because of this thing he’s going to be doing it for could distract him from being a proper host when it comes to this program because he’s thinking about getting ready for that.
He says, hey man, can you do it on your own? I mean, I’ll be there, but can you do it on your own? I say, yeah, sure, no problem. So that’s why you only see my mug on the screen, Ron’s not here. And why it went half an hour earlier than usual. Once again, if you missed those first 10 minutes, five minutes, whatever that you missed, great thing about this is on Rumble and you can go back, check it out. The way to get to his site, his Rumble page. I know he has his untold history channel, whatever it is, but the best way for me to remember it is Mr.
Constitution.com with a hyphen between the Mr. For Mr. And the C for constitution. So it’s Mr. Hyphen constitution.com now get you to his page. Then you find the ones that say learning the Constitution or learn the Constitution. And those are the ones that I’m on. He has his other videos, of course. All right, so back to what we’re talking about. So Article one, section nine, very beginning. Migration or importation of such persons. Migration, movement of people. It doesn’t just include slaves. That includes immigration or importation of such persons that slaves. You import a product, people as products as instates now existing shall think proper admit it was a state issue.
It was up to the states on who to let in, be it slavery or immigration. As of 1808, according to this clause, Congress can start prohibiting whoever they want, be it migration or importation with law. So as of 1808, the Atlantic slave trade is prohibited. No more slaves can be brought in the United States from outside the United States. The only slaves, only new slaves are going to appear as if they’re born into slavery. And founding fathers won’t worry about that because slavery is going to be gone within our lifetime anyway. They believed. So they were willing to give in just a little bit to the slave states.
Slaves born into slavery wait 20 years before this goes into effect, all of that because slavery is on its way out right now. The key in writing this document is to make sure all of the states are willing to sign on to it, keep the union together. So now here’s the interesting thing. Migration being immigration, and it says shall not be prohibited by Congress prior to the year 1808. There are no restrictions. Congress can by law prohibit anybody for any reason from immigrating or being imported into this country for any reason. There is no religious test.
There is no, well, you can’t, you know, do it to people that are from this country. That Congress can prohibit anybody from coming to the country they desire. That’s what the clause says. Now the interesting thing is, like I said, this clause is always points the average person out there will say, well, this is all about slavery. The migration part is about immigration. So now we have federal government with the authority to write law prohibiting certain persons from immigrating into the country. Immigration becomes a federal issue. Now we go back now, later on in Article 6, it says that this Constitution and the laws of the United States and all treaties made or shall be made are supreme law of the land.
The judges are bound thereby and that the states cannot have laws contrary laws or actions contrary. Therefore, if immigration is a federal issue, that means the states have no say when it comes to immigration in the sense of lawmaking, because the lawmaking belongs to Congress. Now that said, states have every right to protect themselves against invasion or illegal aliens or whatever. No different Than if on a campus where the principal is charged with making sure only the right persons come on campus. If the wrong person’s come on campus because the principal fails to do their job, that does not stop the teacher from being able to lock their door or to detain someone who shouldn’t be in their classroom and then have the principal’s security show up, take that person away.
That’s how immigration works in the United States. So a federal government has the authority pass law and to carry out that law, to execute that law. States, however, have the authority to protect their state, to lock their door, to detain persons who shouldn’t be there. But the key is the federal government having the authorities over immigration also has the authority to deport. States do not because they don’t have the authority to make immigration law. So the states, if they need to detain someone who’s an illegal alien, but they want to get them out of the country and they can’t because they don’t have that immigration authority, they have to hand them over to the federal government in order to handle them.
Hand them over the federal government. They have to be in communication and cooperation with federal agencies that are geared towards immigration, like ice, border patrol, so on and so forth. So what sanctuary states have done is they’ve disallowed cooperation and communication between state and local law enforcement and federal agencies. That way, while they could detain them, they can’t deport them, they can’t get them out of state. Well, you only have so much room. You got, you got bigger criminals that need the space. So what happens? That criminal alien, because it can’t be deported because they’re not allowed to communicate with federal government, gets released back into the streets.
What’s unconstitutional violates constitution. States cannot have laws contrary. Federal government has the authority. So the sanctuary state garbage, this resistance regarding immigration, unconstitutional. States don’t have that authority. I believe in states rights. I believe states can make decisions on certain issues. This is not one of them. This one belongs to the federal government. And the states are supposed to work with the federal government to make sure that federal law regarding immigration is carried out. The, the funny thing is then sometimes from certain people, I get this attitude. Oh, well, Doug, you’re anti immigration then? No, I love immigrants.
Well, then you must be racist. And no, I’m not racist either. I love immigrants. I’m not racist. You know how I know? My wife’s an immigrant. She naturalized 2007. Her family originally came from Mexico. She’s one of the Mexicans that did it right. Went through the process. Her dad was part of the bracero program back in the 60s. Saved up his money when he came here on a worker permit basically to work. And he saved up his money so he could afford to bring his family legally. I love immigration. Immigration is a wonderful thing. Come one, come wall.
But go through the process and be beneficial to our country. If you’re not going to be beneficial, if you have a criminal record, if you have some type of horrible illness, you’re not coming in, if you owned a business, you have, you know, you’re. I can refuse service to anyone for any reason. Right. Can’t we do that with our immigration? Better yet, when you’re at home, you lock your door, especially when you’re gone. Why? Because you think everybody on the outside are a bunch of criminals or rapists and murderers? No, but because you understand that there, that element does exist.
Because of that element, you lock your door. When someone knocks on the door and you look through the little peephole, you crack, who is it? You vet them before you let them in. Why? Because you hate everybody on the outside? No, it’s because you love everybody on the inside. So as a country, that’s what you do with your border. You love everybody on the inside. So you want to vet who comes in. You want to make sure that they’re going to follow the rules, they’re going to be a productive member of society, that they’re willing to go through that process and that they don’t have a criminal record or something like that, you’re not going to get them all.
There’s going to be some that slip through the cracks. But when you’re vetting and you’re securing the border and you got the process in play and the state agencies and law enforcement and the federal agencies are working together, they’re communicating, they’re cooperating with each other. It works much better. And the authority lies right there, where I just read Article 1, Section 9. So there you go now. Now the way the left puts it, and a real special, I think is kind of saying this in the chat room, the way the left is putting it out there, what’s up to the states, they should be able to make their own decision.
States rights. Don’t you believe in states rights? Like I said earlier, this is a federal issue. I believe in states rights on issues that belong to states. But if it’s a federal issue, the federal government’s supposed to take care of it. The states are supposed to step aside and either allow the federal government to take care of it or work with the federal government to take care of it. And this is one of those issues, immigration. As for slavery, why didn’t they just outlaw slavery with the Constitution? Matter of fact, three guys that were at the Constitutional Convention in 1787, George Mason being one of them, Elbridge, Gary and Randolph.
Can’t remember the first name. It’s a cousin of Jefferson’s, Edmund Randolph. Those three refused to sign the Constitution because it didn’t outlaw slavery and because it didn’t have a bill of rights. But the idea of the federal government was that it could not interfere with state issues. And while the importation of slaves from the outside would be a federal issue because it’s external, once those slaves were inside the state, it became a state issue. Therefore, the abolition of slavery needed to be done state by state. And so it would defy the whole point of the Constitution for to outlaw slavery subsequent state.
And once again, the founding fathers were firm believers that each state was going to outlaw slavery within their lifetime. They weren’t worried about it. They saw that coming. I say Thomas Jefferson, I don’t mean George and Wheezy. You’re funny. Real special ed. Once again, chat room. For those of you watching live play, feel free to play. Play nice in the chat room. Sign in a rumble in order to be able to access it. For those of you watching later, don’t you wish you could have watched live. For those of you who are going, hey, what’s going on? I’m just now getting here.
It’s already started. We tried to send out enough, you know, forewarning because Ron had something to pop up that was going to make it impossible for him to participate after four. And then also he’s got preparation for what he’s going to be doing. So we moved it to three so that he could end this show when it’s over and then move on to what he’s going to do. So there you go. All right, so now let’s Continue. That’s Article 1, Section 9, first clause, then it adds at the end. This gets interesting too. I’m going to read the whole thing for context, but the part I’m getting right now to add is about the taxation, the migration and importation of such persons as any of the states now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by Congress prior to the year 1808.
But a tax or duty, duty being like an import tax, may be imposed on such importation. Let’s not talk about migration. Let’s talk about the Importation, importation being slavery migration is immigrants importation slaves not exceeding $10 for each person. So what they’re going to do here is a federal government immediately, once this thing’s approved, this Constitution goes into effect, is going to tax the states $10 a person for the importation of slaves. Now, the average knucklehead out there that doesn’t necessarily agree with the Constitution and chases after things like unicorns, rainbows, and Kamala Harris would tell you, see, they’re trying to make money off of slavery, trying to get the federal government to gain money off of slavery.
No, idiot, I’m sure none of you are those idiots, but they’re out there. If you understand economics, you understand what this is. Here’s one things you learn about economics. How do you reduce a behavior? You tax it. The higher you tax, say things like cigarettes, you’re going to get less of that behavior. If you’re going to tax alcohol greater, you probably get less of that behavior. When you make it more expensive because of taxation, you get less of that behavior. So what this is doing is while it’s going to be 20 years before the Atlantic slave trade is going to be outlawed, the way to slow it down, to reduce how many people are being brought in as you tax it, $10 a person, you’re taxing an activity, it’s going to reduce the activity.
The founding fathers understood economics. They understood what happens when you tax things. Taxation red typically reduces how much an activity is carried out. You tax it, you get less of it. That’s just the way that, that’s economics. That is the norm. There are rare exceptions. That’s the way that’s the typically the norm. And so that’s what they were doing. That’s why it says there at the end, a tax or duty may be imposed on such importation not exceeding, exceeding $10 per person. All right, so that’s that first clause. Hopefully you guys got some out of it.
Once again, sorry we started a little bit early. Glad to see all you guys coming into the chat room. I am watching the chat room. I, I’m excited for real special ed because his book is on books actually is on the way. He wanted to get an autographed copy of my history book from me because he paid a little extra and it took me a little time to get it off in the mail. I also sent him Repeal Democracy. Would you like an autograph book? Get a hold of me at constitution speaker yahoo.com constitution speaker yahoo.com we’ll work out how you pay me and then I’ll send it off to you.
Now that said, you can buy them at Amazon. In the near future you will be able to buy them on my store on my website. Matt store has been not working. Don’t do it. Now I’ve had a couple people who did buy books and say I never got it and then I wound up sending them the book myself. So if that happened, let me know. But hopefully by the first year we will get that store up and running and it’s not going to be just books. I’m going to be adding T shirts. One of my favorite T shirts is my cockroach T shirt.
It’s got the Capitol building with cockroaches crawling all over it. And then on the back it says we complain about the cockroaches in Washington but we breed them locally. Stop breeding them. Douglasvgibbs.com I’m hoping eventually have some hats, bumper stickers. I’ve got a card game I’ve worked on. But the other thing I wanted to bring up and this happened last Saturday. Last Saturday. So I have like 10 books that I’ve written so far that are out there and all of them about the constitution except for one of them is about abortion. They’re all nonfiction, they’re all observations and explanations kind of books.
Now when I first started writing. Yeah Melvin, sorry you’re late. Yeah, we started half an hour early tonight for because of unforeseen reasons I tried to get the word out about an hour or so beforehand as did Ron. Sorry you missed it. Missed the first half. Glad you’re here. Check out the first half later. Watch the video again later. It’s good to see you. So when I first I’ve been writing all my life. I love to write fiction and in 2005 I had a fiction book that I had a, that that that I had a agent for but the publishers didn’t want to publish it and one of the main things we were getting was you’re nobody, we’re not gonna take a chance.
So I built an audience and then I self published all these non fiction books. Well that fiction book became available last Saturday. It’s called Damon’s Folly. So if you want to look me up at Amazon, douglasvgibbs.com or Douglas V. Gibbs, Damon’s Folly. That’s book one of the series of dystopian sci fi type book. So I’m gonna start putting out some fiction here and there too. But I’m going to continue writing my non fiction. I’m gonna do Both. So. So if you want to check it out, check it out. I’m excited about it. My wife was one of my proofreaders, was very happy with the book.
The stories are gonna get funner as we go down deeper to the rabbit hole of the story that they’re all connected to. I’ve jazzed about it. Okay, next clause in Article 1, Section 9, second paragraph. The privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended unless when in cases of rebellion or invasion, the public safety may require it. Okay, so what is the writ of habeas corpus? Habeas corpus is Latin for present the body. A privilege of the writ of habeas corpus is that you will. You are due your trial. You are due your day in court.
You can’t be held behind bars and just forgotten. You must be presented for trial. That’s what it means. So the privilege of getting your trial. Constitution. You misspelled it there, Melvin. Constitution. There’s a T right before the ions. Other than that, you got it right. Constitution speaker@yahoo.com. so, yes, remember, if you want to get a book for me, let me know. Constitutional speaker dot com. Make sure you put in the subject line something that I’ll recognize, like, you know, book or autograph copy of a book or something like that because I get so many emails sometimes I’ll accidentally miss them when I’m going through them.
So make sure you put something in the subject line that’s going to catch my attention so I know what it is. All right, so the rid of habeas corpus, present the body, you are due your day in court. That privilege of you having a speedy trial and get your day in court and all that shall not be suspended by the federal government here in Article 1, Section 9, unless in cases of rebellion or invasion. Invaders don’t get that we capture them, they get held until we decide what to do with them. It’s up to Congress In Article 1, Section 8 says that captures on land and sea are up to Congress on what to do with them in cases of rebellion.
This is the clause that they use for J6. Why they were slow to move on the trials. Not that they should have been arrested in the first place. That’s beside the point. They’re all going to get pardoned anyway once Trump’s in office. But that’s beside the point. Yeah, real special. I knew where I was going to go. Chat room. Quick and speedy trial. You know, like the ones that the J Sixers getting. Yeah. I’ve got a friend of Mine, who’s in prison right now. Matter of fact, I’ve been sending out letters. His how to get a hold of him.
So people send him a Christmas card. He basically, he and three other friends prayed for America and for Trump. Never actually went into the Capitol and he got eight years and he was there after it all had happened. He showed up later. Anyway, no, I’m not saying that J6 they’re not saying the J Sixers are invaders. They’re saying they are. They committed rebellion. And that’s what this clause says. So once again, privilege of writ, the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended unless when in cases of rebellion or invasion, the public safety may require it.
Because see, all those J6ers were just, you know, dangerous to the public, had to be apprehended, otherwise who knows what would happen. That kind of garbage. Yeah, they should get restitution too, says Sophia in the chat room. Perhaps we’ll see what happens. I think once all these stories get out, all he’s going to do is push more people away from the Democrats. Democrats are shooting themselves afoot. Just like the Hunter Biden pardon A proved he was a liar. He said he wasn’t going to pardon him. B, an all encompassing blanket pardon. That’s a real dirty stuff.
Of course, that doesn’t stop us from going after hunter civilly. The O.J. simpson trial opened up that precedent. And also criminals are criminals. That doesn’t mean they aren’t going to do anything afterwards or the, you know, I’m, I’m telling you, these people are going to eventually, I think, end up behind bars. I hope Biden crime family, Clinton crime family, Obama crime family, the Pelosi crime family, all these crime families. I think, I think eventually it’ll all catch up. I hope it’s within the next four years. All right, next, next clause. No bill of attainder or ex post facto law shall be passed.
So let’s first go with a bill of attainder. Bill in this case means legislative instrument. In other words, no bill passed by Congress. So I was saying no bill of attainder. So what is attainder? Attainder is another word for punishment, like sentencing. So what it’s saying here is no legislative instrument that punishes like with sentencing is allowed. The reason why is because we have a separation of powers. The power to sentence, the power to punish belongs to the court of law, which means you have to be convicted first. You have to go through that process. Congress can’t just say, hey, you know what, if you do this no trial needed, you’re punished.
Can’t do it. They have no judicial power now. They can make laws saying if you are found guilty of such and such, this ought to be the punishment. The law can do that, but the law cannot do the actual punishing. The law cannot be judicially applied. That is up to the courts or ex post facto law. Ex post facto means after the fact. It’s Latin, you see that the founding fathers love to use Latin here. So no after the fact law, if something was legal when you did it, it cannot suddenly be made illegal later. And then you get arrested for.
And of course, every time he comes up real quick, Melvin, Melvin in the chat room is asking about the books I sent to real special ed. My history book, part one a, A Promise of Truth, self evident. Part one, Early American History. And the other one was Repeal Democracy. The history book is 60 bucks and repeal democracy is 20. All right, so what comes to mind when I talk about ex post facto laws? Guns. If you bought a gun legally and it was legal to buy that kind of gun at the time you bought it, they cannot make a law to later make it illegal and then say, well, you got to turn it in.
No ex, no exposed facto law. You can’t make law after the fact. If you decide to make a law, it, it is, it applies from then on. Anything prior to that, if it was legal, is legal. Part two should be coming out. So people P.B. brockman’s asking me in the chat room when it’s part two of the history book coming out. I hope to have it done by the first of the year. I’m hoping the, the, the part three then should be hopefully by the summer. Part four by the end of 2025. It’s a four part series.
Part one is from the Saxons to the presidency of Jefferson. Part two from Jefferson to 1900, part three, 1900 to the millennium, and then part four will be since 2000. So yeah, we’ll get to some of Trump’s presidency into that one. All right, so no expose facto law shall be passed. Now understand in Article 1, Section 10 also says the states can’t do that. No after the fact law. All right. And by the way, I’m very proud of that history book. It’s like 750 pages, but it’s like first like 500 or the actual book. The rest of it’s like appendixes and the index and glossary, stuff like that.
But I’m very proud of that book. Put a lot of work into it. I’m a historian. I’ve got some friends on historians. Matter of fact, one of my friends who I gleaned a little bit off of asking a lot of questions to help me out. And he’s mentioned in the book and two of his books are. You were used as resources as well, this guy, and I kid you not, this is named John Hancock. John L. Hancock. And he Liberty Inherited is one of his books. I can’t remember the other one off top of my head that I used, but.
And he teaches world history at Liberty University. So when I say I got some really good resources that I used to make sure this book was accurate, I ain’t kidding. Plus also, I own like 80, 85 of the books I used as resources. And so I’m very proud of that book. Okay, next. Next clause. This one is a brackets. In most cases. If it’s not, it should be because it got changed by the sixth Amendment. So this is what the original. The original. Do I cover common law anywhere in your books? P.B. brockman, in that history book I do mention common law.
Spend a little bit of time on it. Common law, really? There’s two types of common law. There is the general common law and then there’s English common law. And we gotta be careful not to get them mixed up. When I talk about English common law and your local common law or your general common law, we have to remember that we’re trying to get away from British common law. Problem with British common law is it was living and breathing. It changed with the whims of society and with court decisions. That’s what they’re trying to do with our Constitution.
We’re trying to get away from that. South Dakota. Gardner. How do you reconcile the rebellion and insurrection language versus the right of people to overthrow a government? Bear arms if the corrupt government isn’t adhering to the Constitution? If they are not adhering to the Constitution is not a. It is not an insurrection or rebellion because they are criminals and you have a right to overthrow that according to the Declaration of Independence. What they’re talking about is rebellion against a legal government. If it’s a legal government, it’s not a rebellion, it’s a correction. All right, so that.
All set. No capitation or other direct tax shall be laid unless in proportion to the census or enumeration herein before directed to be taken. Capitation means direct tax. Head tax. Best way to remember that is decapitation. You lose your head. Capitation is a head tax. Keep your head, but you lose your wallet, I guess. Or Other direct tax shall be laid in proportion and less in proportion of the census or enumeration. What that means is at the time income tax came from the states and was based on their population. That’s why the census is mentioned or enumeration is mentioned in that article.
If you read the 16th amendment, it says that’s no longer the case. Who defines what is resident and insurrection? Warhammer you. So you’re gonna. You’re just gonna cause all kinds of trouble in there, aren’t you? All right, I’ll answer this question. We’re going back to the. To the previous the privilege writ, writ of habeas corpus clause. So if you read the 14th amendment, section three, it will define. It does define insurrection as being against the Constitution. Once again, insurrection is not insurrection. If the government is illegal, it is insurrection. If it’s a legal government, it is following the Constitution.
And you’re. You’re trying to overturn a government that’s following the Constitution. You’re trying to change the government away from the Constitution. That’s insurrection. Suddenly the left has a real bunch of explaining to do. They’ve been overturning, trying to overturn the Constitution since the beginning. They are the insurrectionists. That’s up to the people to realize and decide and take and take action of in the end. And then it says exactly who adjudicates regarding that? Ultimately, the people in the state. The states are supposed to be the final advocate, the final arborist constitution, not the judges. So it’s not supposed to be.
It’s supposed to be us. We’re supposed to be taking control here. I’m just queuing up our next video. Cute the way you put queuing. All right. Real special ed, not to interrupt class you are, but that’s okay. A couple questions for later now and I’ll do it right now. Are your books available in PDF form? No, but I have been thinking about doing that. Are you interested in having your books narrated? I have been thinking about that. I have always held the idea that if they are going to be put into an audible form, I would be the narrator.
But if there’s someone that can do it better than me, I would be more than happy to consider that. So real special ed, feel free to shoot me a email about that and we could talk. All right, back to our discussion. So the no capitation or direct tax and then the census numeration, the states were paying the income tax based on their population. 16th amendment got rid of that. Well, here’s what’s interesting. The federal government didn’t need an income tax directly from you. People say, well, how would we pay for all of these things if we didn’t do an income tax? Trump has talked about getting rid of the income tax.
When we used to run the federal government, no problem. Without an income tax where the states paid for part of the budget and you know what paid for the other half? Tariffs. Tariffs were important part of funding the. Well, first of all, most of what you have in spending wasn’t being spent. Federal government has very limited authorities. You don’t need a lot of money to handle the external stuff unless there’s a war or something like that going on. Otherwise, it really doesn’t take that much. I was a part of a study back in 2007 that found that 85% of federal spending is unconstitutional.
85%. That’s a lot of money that doesn’t have to be spent. Next clause. No tax or duty shall be laid on articles exported from any state. This was to do away with the states acting independently on commerce. The problem was, is the states were very protected. They were protectionists. They did whatever they could to protect their own manufacturing. They were hitting each other with duties and excise taxes regarding the movement of products, import, export and all that. They’re saying, hey, you’re not going to charge for exporting your products to another state or another country. It’s going to be exported to the country.
It’s going through the United States and trade between the states as interstate commerce. That’s going to be. As long as it’s flowing nicely, federal government will stay out of the way. But those problems will mediate no duty or tax or duty for the movement of those products. All right, so P.B. brockman is asking a question that. Well, actually real special at you. Similar to first Real special Ed. Similar to similar sentiment to war. And SD Cash has said he wants to release info to the public, but not all of it. I’m asking because my daughter thinks Biden will pardon himself when.
When the thing jumped and I changed there see info into the public, but not all of it. Oh, who gets to decide what we are allowed to see and what we aren’t? Congress. Congress ultimately has to decide on what needs to be kept secret. That said, most of that stuff’s already been declassified and can be shown to the public. It just hasn’t been. P.B. brockman, doesn’t a person have to be found guilty of a crime before the president can pardon them? Not necessarily. I’m. I’m asking because my daughter thinks Biden will pardon himself. When, when was he found guilty of a crime? If, if he did a blanket pardon of himself like that, it would be abuse of the pardon.
And I think he should be impeached. The pardon for Hunter went beyond what was originally intended. In fact, James Madison during the Constitution convention, when it came to the pardons, argued that there should be limitations on those pardons. Typically a pardon is for a crime already committed, already convicted, already convicted. However, Ford created a precedent of blanket pardons, sweeping pardons like what Biden just did when he pardoned Nixon for everything he did or has been that is known or not known since Watergate. And so that’s kind of what Biden did. He just basically pulled a Gerald Ford regarding Nixon type move.
Thing is, once again, we also have another precedent. Not that I’m a fan of this, but it is out there. O.J. simpson case created the precedent. Okay, if can’t go after him criminally, they go after him civilly. He pardoned him for federal crimes, but that doesn’t mean you can’t go after him civilly. And also what it does is if, if a good old Hunter Biden doesn’t have to worry about now any criminality. He can’t plead the fifth because he plead the fifth. If you’re worried about it self criminalizing, you can’t be criminalized yourself anymore. You’ve been pardoned, therefore you can’t plead the fifth.
Therefore, if you’re being questioned on stuff that’s going on that could incriminate other people like Joe, he has to answer. Could get interesting. Chat room’s having fun right now. Now that everybody’s showing up, they are putting I know about the MRNA vac, COVID vaccine or food. They’ve been trying to do that for a while and have been doing it. They’ve doing other things for a while. They’re putting it in the air if you, if you believe in the chemtrails, all that jazz. All right, Warhammer, two points. One, Hunter now can’t hide behind the 5A. I just said that Hunter is still subject to state and international justice.
That’s true. You still go after him with, with the states and international. P.B. brockman. If he waits till his last day in office, pardons himself, then they can’t beach him. True enough. Warhammer. Doug just nailed both my points. Okay, Darn it before I hit send. See great mindset like Warhamster. This channel doesn’t usually boot folks. But watch with the spam. So. So yeah, HGMB has been Putting kind of hitting the same thing over and over and over with MRNA covered vax. Like he’s spamming or something. So. Yeah, and actually we could boot you if we wanted to.
That we are. We do have those capabilities, but I’m not going to. All right, let’s continue. No preference shall be given by any regulation of commerce or revenue to the ports of one state over another. It’s because the ports now serve import export for the country. Therefore, no port is more important than the other. All ports are going to be equally used by the federal government. So export, import, fees, taxes, all that are going to be the same. It’s going to be run by the federal government. And no port can be treated better than another given privileges over another.
No preferences. You know, back then it was like Baltimore and Boston and New York harbor and so on and so forth. Charleston. Then it says, nor shall vessels bound to or from one state be obliged to enter, clear or pay duties in another. Excuse me. Excuse me. What that’s saying is you’re all part of the same country now. States quit charging each other fees for ships. Could you imagine if New Jersey was charging New York a fee for ships that landed in New Jersey? Can’t do that. You guys are states. They’re all part of the same country now.
You’re in a union. So, Melvin, to continue the conversation was going on earlier in the chat room, says, sounds like other courts, courts could go after Biden after he leaves office. And then someone says, you mean like they did with President Trump? That actually created a precedent. I would say, no, you can’t go after him after he’s out of office. But since they did Trump, all bets are off. All right, get back to what I was saying. No money shall be drawn from the treasury, but in consequence of appropriations. This ties into Article 1, Section 8, where it says that they shall coin the money.
No Federal Reserve, no bank in the United States was allowed by the Constitution. We’re not supposed to borrow money into existence through a Federal Reserve. It’s going to be drawn from the Treasury. Congress creates the money, and then when they need it, they draw it from the Treasury. Instead of all this borrowing from a Federal Reserve. Our national debt is pretty much because of that. Federal Reserve violates the Constitution in more ways than one. That’s one of them. And it says, but in consequence of appropriations made by law. In other words, when you’re to draw money, when the federal government, in other words, is going to spend money, it has to be approved by Congress, has to be appropriated and appropriated means, hey, this much money for that, you don’t pull out this much money and spend it on something else.
It has to be spent on what it was appropriated for. And a regular statement and account of the receipts and expenditures of all public money shall be published from time to time. You know, transparency, that’s shocking, right? Don’t see much transparency anymore. Hell, they lose track of what they spent. Well, we don’t know what happened to that 16 billion. They’re supposed to give us a record of what they’re spending. They’re supposed to put it out there, they’re supposed to publish it. And they’re not even sure where the money’s going. Oh, they know where it’s going. They’re lying about it, I think.
Finally, last clause in Article 1, Section 9. I’m surprised we got through the whole thing today. No title of nobility shall be granted by the United States. After all, we are all created equal, right? No nobility, no special privilege. That’s right. There is no white privilege and the Constitution says so. No anything privilege legally, no title of nobility shall be granted by the United States and no person holding any office of profit or trust under them, the states shall, without the consent of Congress, accept of any present emolument, office or title of any kind whatever from any king, prince or foreign state.
If you are an office holder. You can’t be knighted, you can’t be given the title, you can’t be given gifts from other countries unless Congress approves it. And that’s because it’s they, you know, they recognize it’s not for influence and things like that. And I remember when Obama received the Nobel Peace Prize and with that Nobel Peace Prize, which is from a foreign source, comes a million dollar prize money. I wonder, I don’t know the answer to this, I never looked it up. But I wonder, did Obama receive the consent of Congress to receive it? If he didn’t, did not, then he acted unconstitutionally.
There you are, Article one, Section nine. And we got about three minutes left before the end of this program today because we went from 3 to 4 rather than 3:30 and 4:30. Once again, for those of you going, wait a second, what happened here? I showed up. You guys are already going on or what are you talking about? You’re stopping now? So once again, about an hour or two before the show, we realized we have to push it up 3:00. So we did. If you missed the first part of it, wonderful thing is you can go back and watch this video later.
We he Ron had something he had to do, couldn’t be on past four. I had the ability to start at a three. Then he knew that he couldn’t properly host it. So he stepped out. Is just me and myself and I now that said, guess I missed when Congress gave consent for all that money and said to Ukraine, you know, Melvin, you might have a point there. Actually, I think they did earmark it for that, but it was a bad move. I’m not anti Ukraine. I’m not anti Russia. I’m not for Russia. I’m not for Ukraine.
I believe that is an ancient war that is none of our business. That said, that said, the Ukraine used to be the most corrupt government in, in, in the world. I think Albania might have them beat and suddenly we’re gonna start throwing money at them. Where do you think that money’s going? I think it’s all going into the war. And why is it that war suddenly erupted in a couple places once Trump was no longer in office? Is it possible that Trump, I don’t know, made sure those wars weren’t happening by America being healthy economically, by money not going into those countries through subsidies or through aid, by the fuel prices staying down so that Russia and the Middle east couldn’t really make much money because prices were so low because of America’s economy and America’s independent energy, you know, position.
Could it be. All right, so what’s your email? One more time. I might have some more questions too. All right, so in addition to if you want to get an autograph copy of one of my books, if you want to send a question to me as well, make sure you put the subject line, something that will make me know what it is because I could miss it. I get a lot of email. The email once again is constitution speaker yahoo.com constitution speaker@yahoo.com all right, so united we stand combined with kick butt. God bless America, my friends.
God bless you. Don’t forget douglasvgibbs.com I got a new article, new article about tariffs that I posted this morning. Go to politicalpostachio.com to go directly to the blog or douglasfeegibbs.com and just hit the blog link. I have a new article about tariffs. Tonight I plan to post an article about the blanket pardon of Hunter Biden. So I’m going to be do that too. Don’t forget the tea says Melvin. Yeah. Constitution Speaker Yahoo.com Real Special Ed. You got it exactly right. Thank you guys for being here. We’ll see you next time. Appreciate you. We should be back to normal time 3:30 again next week.
Sorry about the change up today. Like I said, you missed the beginning. Feel free to go back. God bless you. Appreciate all you remember douglasvgibbs.com and up there in the right hand corner where it says join $9 a month. That helps fund what I do. All right, we’ll talk to you later. Bye bye now.
[tr:tra].
Author
