FREEDOM FORUM: Discussion

Make a Comment

Comments in Response


Comment by Jerry Vierra
Entered on:
I closed my pending book, Traffic Citation Scheme, with these words:

Justice Mathews penned the most thought provoking words in the case of Yick Yo v. Hopkins. He wrote, "Sovereignty itself is, of course, not subject to law, it is the author and source of law." While deeply pondered those words, it became apparent. Many today believe the people are the sovereignty over the government. That is true. Those in government believe they are sovereign, and that is true. How can both be Sovereignty at the same time? Sovereignty is the Supreme Law of the Land – the United States Constitution. When people are under its Authority, sovereignty flows from their minds. Their thoughts are governed by the realities of the United States Constitution. Sovereignty is a two-way street. When the people are under the authority of the Supreme Law, they condemn and remove those in any official capacity, if they are operating outside the limits of the Supreme Law of the Land.

Justice Mathews explained, "When we consider the nature and the theory of our institutions of government, the principles upon which they are supposed to rest, and review the history of their development, we are constrained to conclude that they do not mean to leave room for the play and action of purely personal and arbitrary power. Likewise, those We the People entrusted with the authority over a physical area, can also punish those living outside the limits of the Supreme Law. An example would be a person trespassing upon the rights of another. That is why We the People established police powers in the states and national government. Suffice it to say, the sovereignty of We the People or the sovereignty of those we entrust with authority, are responsible for holding the other accountable to the Supreme Law of the Land – United States Constitution. Mr. Chief Justice Marshal first wrote "It has been said that the people had already surrendered all their powers to the state sovereignties, and had nothing more to give. But, surely, the question whether they may resume and modify the powers granted to government does not remain to be settled in this country. (McCulloch v. Maryland, 17 U.S. (4 Wheat.) 316 (1819).).

Make a Comment