Sovereign,

October 12, 1998.

Six months after the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor, the Congress of the United States of America passed a Joint Resolution authorizing the "Pledge of Allegiance" an act that initiated one of the most "significant transfers of political power" in American history, and the People never even noticed.

While the "Pledge of Allegiance" was intended to promote patriotism and nationalism, at the same time it assaults the most basic of all the Constitution’s protections against tyranny and corruption; the separation and balance of its enumerated political powers and the basic principle of "The Rule of Law".

The original pledge first appeared publicly on page 446, in the September 8^th. 1892, issue of "The Youth’s Companion", a juvenile periodical; it reads as follows;

Now; Just Fifty Years later, on June 22nd. 1942, a joint Congressional Resolution sanctioned the following "Pledge of Allegiance".

{Public Law 623, Section 7, Chapter 435, H.J. Res. 303}

Twelve years later, on June 14^th. 1954, Congress amended that "Pledge of Allegiance" to include the words "under God".

When framing the Constitution the Founding Fathers saw to it that all those elected or appointed to political office swore allegiance to the Constitution and not to the National or State Governments.

The President’s Oath is the People’s Oath as well. Before assuming the powers of presidency the President-elect must first comply with Article II, Section 1, Clause 8 of the Constitution that states;

"Before he enter on the Execution of his Office, he shall take the following Oath or Affirmation: ‘I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will, to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."

Similarly, all other elected and appointed officials must comply with Article VI, Clause 3 of the Constitution. "The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution."

Upon comparing the citizen’s "Pledge of Allegiance" with the aforementioned mandated Oaths one may ask, "Why do the People as the Constitution’s creators and its natural defenders, pledge allegiance to the flag, a symbol of the Republic, rather than to the Constitution itself?"

Is not a Constitution more significant to the rule of law than a Republic? When citizen’s pledge their allegiance "to the flag of the United States of America and to the Republic for which it stands", are we not promising fidelity to a derivative of the Constitution and therefore to the inferior power?

If "We the People" who within each generation ordain and establish the Constitution, do not actively support nor defend the Constitution’s principles, institutions and safeguards, then how can we provide the protection for the Constitution and its parts when they are threatened from within our Federalist structure or beyond?

It is from commitments such as this that brings to mind a Nation of once rational People screaming "Deuchland, Deuchland iber alles!" ("Germany, Germany over everything")

It is because our freedom, security and independence depend on the Federal Republic’s obedience to the Constitution, that the Constitution should be the first object fealty of those who serve the People and the People themselves.

Unhappily, the Pledge of Allegiance’s silence on Federalism has made possible what no invading army could achieve, a subverted Constitution, a bloated and power hungry General Government, and a "largely" uninvolved, misguided and ill informed Citizenry. All of which provides an opened door to tyranny.

In recent years politicians have often repeated that "Politics is Perception." While that may be true to some it remains in a sorrowful state of tacit acceptance by most, and is an idiosyncratic characteristic of our human condition. Such a curious peculiarity should not pass unchallenged or un-amended. For most "Politics is Perception" but only by the Gullible and the Ignorant.

"King Kong" is a screenwriter’s invention of a character in a movie. In that two movies bearing his name were made in different generations, it has played a significant part in my childhood as a "child" and in my present childhood, as an "adult."

While participating in some fantasies is acceptable and fun, the improbability of its circumstances is rarely questioned. Then, others should be, such as our Greek, Roman and Teutonic heritages and the Fables and Fairy Tales we offer to our children as lessons in morality.

In the story line of King Kong the Island People built a huge wall that was strong enough to keep Kong, a 60-foot ape, separate from the people for hundreds if not thousands of years.

However, in all the years since I saw the film no one has ever mentioned to me a fact about the wall that offended my good sense. Once we accept that the purpose of the wall was to "separate" then why did the people and the architects of that great wall put in such massive Doors?

Is not a door an invention to provide easy exit or entry?

Does not the door provide a physical weakness in the structure and an Invitation for Kong to enter?

I believe the "Pledge of Allegiance" provides for such a door that profoundly weakens the Constitutional bulwarks that were built to protect us from tyranny and support our liberty and freedoms.

I also believe "Pledge of Allegiance" weakens the People’s

Perceptions about our Constitution in a way that distorts our "Compound Federal Republic" in such a way that it appears to be a "Simple Republic."

James Madison wrote in Federalist #39 in parts: the Constitution is to be founded on the assent and ratification of the people of America, given by deputies elected for the special purpose; but on the other that this assent and ratification is to be given by the people, not as individuals composing one entire Nation; but as composing the distinct and independent states to which they respectively belong.

It is to be the assent and ratification of the several states derived from the supreme authority in each state, the authority of the people themselves. The act therefore establishing the constitution will not be a national, but a federal act.

That it will be a federal and not a national act, as these terms are understood by the objectors; the act of the people as forming so many independent states, not as forming one aggregate nation is obvious from this single consideration, that it is to result neither from the decision of majority of the people of the union, nor from that of a majority of the states.

Each state in ratifying the constitution is considered as a sovereign body independent of all others, and only to be bound by its own voluntary act. In this relation then the new constitution will, if established, be a federal, and not a national constitution. [The Federalist – (Publius)- No. 39]

The Federal Republic consists of (3) Three independent sovereignties:

1. The People, whose Life and Powers come from the Creator,
2. The states, whose enumerated powers come from the People,
3. The National government, whose enumerated powers come from the People and by the concurrence of the States.

Each of the three sovereignties is separated by constitutional design to prevent any of the three powers, alone or in concert, to bridge the constitutional barriers separating them.

 

 

 

The Constitution is the People’s most valuable resource as it protects our liberty and is the engine of our prosperity. On the other hand the People are the Constitution’s ultimate political champion and its source of power.

There is no other political entity that has the power, incentive, ability nor the will to defend it for us.

As currently written, the "Pledge of Allegiance" leaves one with the idea that the People, the independent and sovereign States, and the National Government were as "melted" into an "Omnipotent simple Republic"; which is a constitutionally alien and repugnant idea.

Under the color of law the "Pledge of Allegiance" violates the principle of "Federalism", the manifestation of the separation and balance of political power and the foundation upon which the Federal Republic is structured, and if we as a nation of American’s are willing to ignore and compromise so profound a principle, then of what value is the principle?

Alexander Hamilton wrote in Federalist No.32, in part:

An entire consolidation of the states into one complete national sovereignty, would imply an entire subordination of the parts; and whatever powers might remain in them would be altogether dependent on the general will.

But as the plan of the convention aims only at a partial union or consolidation, the state governments would clearly retain all the rights of sovereignty which they before had, and which were not by that act, exclusively delegated to the United States. [Federalist #32]

Defending the Constitution’s political principles of federalism and republicanism is crucial for our survival as a Constitutional Republic and by that, a free people.

New technologies or modern circumstances cannot outdate the Constitution; it is a timeless document predicated on our eternally human conditions.

The Constitution’s designed distribution of overlapping and unique jurisdictions does not permit casual or arbitrary Infringements or Abridgements by the Legislature, Executive and the Judiciary branches of government.

Nor is it appropriate for it to suffer "Politically Correct" Interpretations based on the current passions and Fractionally Motivated agendas of the Courts, the Legislature, and the Executive branches of government.

Is it not then consistent that because the People, by their Constitution, demand our elected officials pledge to protect and defend the Constitution. The citizen’s oath and allegiance also provide for the same obligations.

Are we not, as the source of the Constitution’s power its Natural Defenders? Are not the oaths of our representatives our oaths as well? If not, then I fear we number the days of our Constitution and our Constitutional Federal Republic.

As a remedy to the current "Pledge of Allegiance’s" omissions and oversights and for the reestablishment of our constitutional Priorities and Principles, I now ask you to please contribute your suggestions on how a Citizen’s Pledge of Allegiance should be worded.

Now, as in closing, I would like to add one more question: