REC #1 HATONN
SUN., MAY 29, 1994 8:35 A.M. YEAR 7, DAY 286
SUN., MAY 29, 1994
MESSAGES FROM GOD
GOD SPEAKS TO US IN OUR JOY--BUT SHOUTS
TO US IN OUR PAIN!
DO YOU HEAR?
ILLUSIONS AND DELUSIONS
You witness a beauteous sunrise with promise of a day of glory--IF YOU NEED NOT RAIN OR ULTRAVIOLET RAYS! Which, then, is your perception? Disappointment in another cloudless, rainless day of DNA transference to an already weakened body? OR, glory that you have more lessons to learn? Come on, chelas, get with this program --even if BOTH are illusion, it is your responsibility to act in appropriate response lest you walk through this play with no life at all... But, do you blame--or do you "thank" God? Why? Is the sunrise within or without your control? Is not ALL but a perception? If you are filled you are not hungry and food has little meaning if a feast be laid before you--but if you are starving just the smell of food will ignite a fire of want within.
Ones continue to shout at me, "...you are a narrow being..."! Ah, but as I speak with you--I am but a participant in a play well under way and actually nearing its change.
If I say, "God places conditions..." then I am, again, a rotten and false god of some sort! When I write of Wicca and influences of evil even though the "intent" is thought to be grand--I am pounced upon as if I be the devil in disguise. So be it. If you wish to eat the chaff and leave the wheat it is your pleasure and your choice. I ask that all "rebuttals" be made available but I have been asked to take no more space in the paper for such. Since the paper is the focus of a separate team, I honor that, even though there be only one such note to offer.
John's brother, James, asks that John be allowed to remain in Sacramento in the new housing place in which he now resides until his own wife's recent surgery heals a bit. Then he will arrange for conservatorship so that John might be where he would ask to be.
When John arrived at his new place from the Alzheimer's center in Bakersfield he was found to bear an infection and was infested with vermin. He is doing well now even though no one is told where he is located nor are friends allowed to visit. He IS being cared for according to his brother and we thank Jim for continued updates. But what of John? Is it not sad to have a man still incarcerated and virtually held in isolation so that another might gain his property? He is hundreds of miles away from his home and his friends but still the parties involved demand it to be so. And how is YOUR life going? This is going to become the "norm", my friends, and I wonder who will come and get you out? Families are ripped asunder in this day--how does yours feel about you? Will YOU have a visitor once every couple of weeks while you are disallowed to participate in that which you have spent your life in preparation to attain? It bears pondering for this is an example of how it will be.
No report update as to status.
We are told that ones have investigated Ronn Jackson and he does not exist. So be it.
I guess I don't know who all you people are writing to, getting responses from, and visiting. I suppose it is assumed it is "...just another of Hatonn's famous lies and disinformation..."! Is Ronn Jackson everything unto everyone? No--he was certainly a most negative impacting person on some he has met around the globe. However, he worked for some very important people who impact your lives EVERY DAY OF EXISTENCE and they KNOW ME AND THEY KNOW THE SCORE...!
I wish to go on record here, however, that "I" never suggested anyone "tweak"
Mr. Fort's neck. I believe that Dharma has thought about a Chiropractic adjustment
in "tweaking" for Mr. Green and even that was done in total fun and frustration. In the same tone of fun I offered that perhaps Mr. Green should eat all that gold to which he claims gifting--and go for a bit of R&R at the old swimming hole.
So, what is wrong? NOTHING! Think, please. On Tuesday there is a closing of your Congressional sitting (setting, if you prefer). It is known that when Ronn Jackson goes into motion and the CONTACT continues to carry the ball--it is a BAD, BAD, BAD game ahead for the Congressmen and criminal politicians. Why is Rostenkowski playing games of delay and detain? UNTIL, OF COURSE, FOCUS IS ELSEWHERE AND CONGRESS IS IN SUMMER RECESS!! HOLD TO YOUR PATIENCE--A LOT OF POLITICAL LIVES ARE ON THE LINE HERE AND BARGAINING NEGOTIATIONS HAVE BEEN MORE LIKE "PUT IT WHERE THE SUN DON'T SHINE" THAN, "SURE, JOE, I'LL BE HAPPY TO SHUT UP....". In addition, how many banks have you noted to be open and in operation through the Memorial Day weekend? Patience has nothing to do with it--these are the FACTS of living.
What do you people believe? Do you actually think that angels are going to come sprinkle stardust on your pillow and perfection will come sweeping over the world? Is THAT the way your world seems to be headed? Even the tooth-fairy, at best, through very human hands, leaves a dime, a quarter or whatever. How many elves and fairy feather dusters have come in their own true form and done your work for you? Perhaps a good neighbor or a loved one has hopped in and helped bail the boat--but no fairies, my good friends.
You are to the end of childhood, nappers. I suggest all of you make Arthur Clarke a bit more wealthy--and go get a small book called CHILDHOOD'S END. It is written as fiction, just as we wrote Sipapu Odyssey. However, it is time you FACE the consequences of your actions on Earth, confront WHO might be the brethren--and What and Who might be "GOD" in this play!
There are major REASONS that we present in the manner in which we come. There are more important things in this world than your opinions on any selective basis if you are considering the massive impact of what is going on--on the world.
There is a VERY POWERFUL "COMMITTEE" and it may well function right through your United Nations at some point along here--actually, it already does so.
It is more powerful than the Committee of 300 and if nothing else--recognizes our participation, our mission and our purpose.
There are jests and fun over the possibility of space aliens being among you--there are well over 2,000,000 from Orion alone. They integrate with you and look like you. They are NOT lizards nor serpents. Some are thin and some are chubs. There is an effort to secure, intact, the globe--it is no good to anyone, good or evil, blown to smithereens.
What is it you people WANT? More lies? More false teachings that tell you anything and everything is "OK" and it won't matter? It matters! Indeed there are "conditions"
--why would God have otherwise given you rules by which to live and interact? Even the one that says, "Do unto others that which you would have them do unto you"? Is this not a SUPREME "commandment"? However, to call my people robbers and thieves is an interesting concept after a whole entity has been destroyed by one of its own! So be it for it shall be in the "eating" of the pudding as to whether or not the cook placed sugar or alum!?!
It is a time for some to readjust, relocate and redefine needs of the present. As this takes place there is great appreciation for friendships made and allowance for representatives at other ends of network chains. As the work becomes more focused in leadership through the national reclamation of your foundation laws in an attempt to regain your Constitution, we hope ones will consider becoming a hub or information focus. This can be done from anyplace wherein there is computer and phone service. These things can be spoken of later and certainly it is a most human physical need and responsibility. Find your place wherein you are happy and feel most content--and THEN, only then, can you open to your calling. As the network grows in the human expression about your nation--so too will be the need for such management centers so that the flow is allowed to every corner. This has nothing to do with religion--THIS HAS TO DO WITH THE RESPONSIBILITY OF YOUR NATIONAL RECOVERY. One or two fax networks, for instance, may be sufficient--but the life-blood for these centers must come from the support centers. Do not be surprised at who may well be your ally in the international media snatch-up game! A rebel "with a cause" is sometimes not noted at onset of the rebellion. A Fox opening up the hen-house from the clutches of the wolves may be a most remarkable change in events--perhaps the wolf-pack is in a bit of trouble? Is a "fox" a good master for the henhouse? No, but one on your side is better than that which IS in the disguised wolf world.
There are a couple of things I ask to share with you from the "network". The first two come from the Center for Action, Citizens for A Constitutional Washington, John R. Prukop, Ex. Dir:. 11910-C Meridian East, #142, Puyallup, Washington, P.Zone 98373/TDC.
THE GREAT ELECTION FRAUD OF 1994
A great legal fraud has come to light which must be resolved in 1994 or the elections normally held to fill all public offices may have to be cancelled, nationwide, based on the statutes of fraud. Here are the facts to be considered.
On March 9, 1933, the U.S. Congress delegated to Franklin D. Roosevelt (FDR) the WAR POWERS--emergency rule by Executive Order--(which temporarily SUSPENDED THE U.S. CONSTITUTION AND THE BILL OF RIGHTS, hereinafter referred to as CBR) in order to deal with the monetary crisis then existing. Much of the bureaucracy with us today was created during the first one hundred days of the FDR Administration when most official acts were, deliberately, unconstitutional, but nobody cared because of the so-called monetary crisis. This unconstitutional "bureaucracy" created in 1933 could only exist and operate WHILE EMERGENCY RULE REMAINED IN FORCE AND THE CBR REMAINED SUSPENDED! Keep this in mind.
However, it soon became apparent to those in the seats of power that a permanent state of "emergency" was deemed necessary if the unconstitutional (fully socialist) bureaucracy created in 1933, were to remain functional and given some form of accepted legality. To accomplish this without alerting the people, a practice was developed [National Emergencies Act., Sec. 202(d)] whereby the President transmits to the Congress (quietly) a notice to extend the "emergency" for another year. President Clinton did his part on May 25, 1993 when he "extended" the national emergency created by George Bush the year before [Executive Order #12808] using the crisis in Bosnia for the excuse. Clinton will have to repeat that "extension" again in 1994, using the same, or some other contrived "emergency" to keep his fully socialist and unconstitutional bureaucracy alive and well one more year.
But there is a far more sinister side to these yearly "extensions" we need to examine here and now. When the President "extends" the Emergency, he also fully SUSPENDS AND NULLIFIES THE CBR WITH THE FULL COOPERATION AND KNOWLEDGE OF THE CONGRESS BUT WITHOUT THE KNOWLEDGE OF THE PEOPLE. It is NOT a media event. These are deliberate and premeditated acts of TREASON and SEDITIOUS CONSPIRACY TO OVERTHROW the CBR by the Federal Government. It has resulted in 61-years of governing where the CBR has been "OFFICIALLY", BUT SECRETLY, SHELVED. Now we know how and WHY unconstitutional bills get legislated. (NAFTA, Brady Bill, etc.).
This "OFFICIAL" SUSPENSION OF THE CBR--see Title 12 USC Sec. 95(a) & (b)--the current law of today--needs to become the chief issue for any one running for public office, except those who are Democrats or Republicans, as they are responsible for the above crimes. Candidates winning an election could never promise, or give their constituents any REPRESENTATION whatsoever and COULD NOT BE SWORN-IN, by law, to support and defend the CBR when IT HAS BEEN, AND STILL IS, "OFFICIALLY" SUSPENDED, BY STATUTE.
THE ENTIRE ELECTION PROCESS IN 1994, for reasons above, is only for fools and knaves for it is total FRAUD as long as "EMERGENCY RULE" REMAINS IN EFFECT.
As a candidate, you can become a prime mover TO END EMERGENCY RULE and restore the CBR to its rightful place in the affairs of government. Get yourself informed on this issue (see below) and may God guide you and bless you in this pursuit!
NOTICE: This flyer was prepared and distributed by Citizens For A Constitutional Washington, 11910-C Meridian East, #124, Puyallup, Washington 98373. For a complete and detailed analysis concerning the contents of this flyer; write for a copy of the 2-hour video presentation WAR AND EMERGENCY POWERS and the accompanying 153-page booklet with the Government's own documents and exhibits. WAR AND EMERGENCY POWERS video is available for $25.00. The accompanying booklet is available for $20.00. Add $5.00 shipping & handling. Please, NO CHECKS OR CODs. U.S. Postal Money Orders or Cash only.
* * * *
MAY 26, 1994
(Puyallup, Washington) Just in case you missed it, on February 1, 1994, CBS Radio News announced that Senate Republican leader Bob Dole of Kansas had been "enlisted" to fight the so-called "WAR ON CRIME". The "sound bite" containing Senator Dole's own words stated he had become a "convert" and that he would now support a "thirty-million-dollar FEDERAL GUN BUY-BACK program", similar to ones that have been utilized with mixed success at the State and local levels. Dole admitted, however, that with 200-million guns on the streets, the program won't do much to stop crime. [H: Dear ones, don't you see what is more important HERE? A 'WAR' is the same as announcing an "emergency". By declaring the ongoing "war on crime" you have JUST EXTENDED THE STATE OF EMERGENCY...!]
Under the disguise of "crime prevention" and "health care reform", a massive effort is under way to disarm America, being promoted under various pretenses at all levels of government. Here in Washington State alone a total of 65 or more anti-gun measures had been impressed upon the legislature, some under the heading of "youth violence reduction". This anti-gun feeding-frenzy threatens honest law-abiding Citizens and their unalienable right to keep and bear arms to self defense. But why is it that those who are most in favor of "gun control" are the ones softest on the criminal? Why is it that collectivist methods are the only solutions they propose? The answer should put you into a state of fear.
Little is known about an obscure yet dramatic piece of legislation that was enacted into law by the Congress in 1961. At the behest of then Senator Prescott Bush of Connecticut, yes the father of George Bush, President John F. Kennedy signed into law Public Law 87-297 on September I, 1961. This law can be located in the United States Code, Title 22, and beginning at Section 2551. This law set the stage for the creation of the "United States Disarmament Agency" and set in place the political machinery to DESTROY our nation's sovereignty. Notice the word "disarmament" in the title of this agency. Every Congress and every President since 1961 has worked, methodically, and craftily, to implement various provisions of Public Law 87-297. It is all part and parcel of the march to merge America into the "New World Order". All public policy is a result of the "emergency" OF 1933. WHAT "EMERGENCY"...you say? Read on.
With the foregoing in mind, are we now to believe that all of a sudden Senator Bob Dole has had a "change of heart" from his previously stated position, that he was now a "convert" and would support the WAR ON CRIME, and that he will now support the filibuster of the Schumer/Feinstein Amendment, the so-called "Assault Weapon Ban" contained in H.R. 42967 which let the first salvo of the Brady Bill pass with only THREE SENATORS ON THE FLOOR. In January, he urged the President
--on national television--TO SUPPORT THE SENATE VERSION OF THE CRIME BILL containing the FEINSTEIN GUN BAN. This is the same Senator Bob Dole who also introduced a resolution SUPPORTING CLINTON's POSITION ON THE CHICAGO GUN SWEEPS--WITHOUT WARRANTS--TO SEARCH FOR AND SEIZE GUNS.
And remember well, with the suspension of the Constitution FOR the United States OF America on March 6, 1933, and its continuation for the past 61-years by various Presidential Executive Orders, including those recent Executive Orders of President William J. Clinton, the American people are under the awesome power of a Constitutional Dictatorship, under the War Posers and the Trading with the Enemy Act of October 6, 1917. Since 1933, the American people have not had the often quoted and misheralded 2nd Amendment Right to "keep and bear arms". It is only through "license" by the "statutorily created right" that you presently have the ability of firearms ownership. One must understand the legal meanings of the words: "owner" and "transfer" as used in the law as it pertains to the Federal Firearms--under license--as a result of the Constitutional Treason and the Acts of President Franklin D. Roosevelt and the 73rd Congress of 1933.
The remedy? First things first. Because the American people are unaware of being unaware, they must first be made aware. Therefore, we strongly recommend: that Americans be made aware of the treason and seditious conspiracy, and the "emergency" we've all been under for the past 61-years, by obtaining the material presented in the prior writing . The materials are not copyrighted, therefore once you obtain a master set, you may duplicate and distribute them at will. But remember, the messengers have paid dearly to bring you the research to put all of the pieces together, starting at a single focal point, from which all the rest of America's problems originate. Once the American people understand what the problem is, we can then begin to correct the misdeeds of the past 61-years of the "emergency". Once the American people understand the perfidy, greed and avarice that have held them in bondage all these years, there will be no need to run in circles from one Patriot meeting to the next in search of that elusive and magic "silver bullet".
* * * *
Thank you. Please support these people, readers. They have no magic to attend them and if their voices are silenced--it will be YOUR loss for they mostly have nothing more to lose.
This comes from three directions so we will run the next message. I will not make comment.
TO: Ken Vardon, APFN:
All kinds of rumors are flying tonight and I need to know if you have heard any of them. First it came in from Gary Hunt that all the large cities have put their police and rescue people on alert. Dallas & Houston are two definite. Also the National Guard troops in Wyoming have been moved out to make room for a large number of Soviet troops (300,000) who are being flown into the country... We talked with a man in the Navy who said they are moving all the weapons from the Navy Reserves and shipping them to Va. The Army National Guard is doing the same. (THE FEDS CAN'T ORDER THE GUARD TO DO THAT). SO IT MUST BE THE ARMY RESERVES.
Also there is a comet which has entered the area around Jupiter and it looks like it may hit Jupiter and ignite it and to expect this between July 18-24. Also Cape Canaveral has been put on alert and the firemen in that area have been issued guns (or ordered to arm themselves). Engineers of NASA have been told to move north of Cape Canaveral.
Also they plan on introducing the new money July 1 and it may be exchanged as high as 1 - 10 on our old bills.
Have you heard any of this? If so please let us know.
R & L I., Jacksonville, Fl.
* * * *
If you have information regarding this please send it through APFN--along with a donation for services to Ken Vardon: FAX: 702-433-9916. 3230 E. Flamingo Rd. #200, Las Vegas, Nevada 59121.
Thank you for your attention.
REC #1 HATONN
MON., MAY 30, 1994 10:20 A.M. YEAR 7, DAY 287
MON., MAY 30, 1994
Yea, though I walk through the valley of shadows--even unto the shadow called 'death'--I shall be sustained...! Aren't sure? Dharma made thirteen typing errors in that one sentence above--and I am as near as her mind itself--kick not yourselves for the pondering upon doubts and faith--ye are not to be blind, deaf and dumb. You are birthed to CREATE, BREATHE LIFE INTO THAT WHICH APPEARS UNSUSTAINABLE AND SHOW THE WAY--NOT ROLL INTO THINE OWN COFFIN AND COP OUT. So, with this in mind she goes forth to ignore me and promptly drops a brick on her foot. Now she sits in hurt, doubt AND misery. BUT, GLORY BE, WE FINALLY GET "THERE". She finally says to me, "Father, get it done--I release this burden to you for I can do no more this day save write. I cannot specifically or individually cause the feds to do anything. I cannot measure nor cause any other to do anything against their will--I can't even water a flowerpot without breaking my toe--it's yours and I'll do what you want me to do, Sir, but you'll have to show me the way and attend that which I cannot. Thank you"!
You KNEW that our mission would be like no other. You KNEW that when action would REALLY BEGIN and get under way it would be like no other. YOU ALSO KNOW THAT WHEN THE STUDENT IS READY THE TEACHER IS PRESENT AND WHEN THE NEEDS ARE AT HAND THE WAY WILL OPEN...IF YOU ALLOW IT! You will only get off the revolving wheel of "circumstance control" when you have journey important enough to plot pathway and direction, needs and creation--enough to DO IT. YOU ARE NOT HELPLESS, YOU ARE CREATORS
--SO GET THEE FORTH AND CREATE! And, take MY HAND and I'll take you there--for ye need not walk alone--YE CANNOT WALK ALONE! My dear ones, each day is a "trial" of one kind or another--if ye "have" how will ye use of it? If ye have "not"--what will ye do? What IS your journey and, at present, your service?
In this place, Dharma, the task is to present truth, direction, the various written lessons and to bring the principles of life, yea the Christ "way" (not a man by a label of some kind--but rather a "way" to strength and freedom) and all else is but distraction in the daily attention fragmentation. You are responsible only for YOUR part--others, theirs. But some cannot do theirs until you do yours and thus and so....
Remember the words of Benjamin Franklin, who said: "He who shall introduce into public affairs the principles of Christ--will change the face of the world". I want to remind you of something, readers; on the tip of the highest mountain it may appear that you can see far, however, if ye would be sustained, ye must go into the valley wherein you can grow, abide, and EXPERIENCE. Seeing is NOT ENOUGH--IT IS ONLY THE BEGINNING SO THAT ALL THAT COMES AFTER THE SEEING IS WELL-DONE, "MY GOOD AND FAITHFUL...." HEAR ALL, SEE ALL AND THEN--ACT IN WISDOM! For it is within reason and WISDOM of actions which shall allow us to prevail--not "just" survive--but prevail!
Let us return to our task of the Federalist Papers for in them comes the definition and reasoning, the logic and the MEANING of your Constitution which you freedom-seekers CLAIM TO DESIRE TO RETAIN. To accomplish the task--YOU MUST KNOW WHAT IS MEANT AND INTENDED--GUESSING WILL NOT CUT-IT THIS TIME.
CONSTITUTION: ARTICLE 1
SECTION 3, PARAGRAPH 7
Judgment in cases of impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any office of honor, trust or profit under the United States: but the party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to indictment, trial, judgment and punishment, according to law.
Federalist Papers, Excerpts:
No. 84, Par. 4, Alexander Hamilton:
Independent of those which relate to the structure of the government, we find the following: Article 1, section 3, clause 7--"Judgment in cases of impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from office and disqualification to hold and enjoy any office of honor, trust, or profit under the United States; but the party convicted shall, nevertheless, be liable and subject to indictment, trial, judgment, and punishment according to law". Section 9, of the same article, clause 2--"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". Clause 3--"No bill of attainder or ex post facto law shall be passed". Clause 7--"No title of nobility shall be granted by the United States; and no person holding any office of profit or trust under them shall, without the consent of the Congress, accept of any present, emolument, office, or title of any kind whatever, from any king, prince, or foreign state". Article 3, section 2, clause 3--"The trial of all crimes, except in cases of impeachment, shall be by jury; and such trial shall be held in the State where the said crimes shall have been committed; but when not committed within any State, the trial shall be at such place or places as the Congress may by law have directed". Section 3, of the same article--"Treason against the United States shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort. No person shall be convicted of treason, unless on the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act, or on confession in open court".
And clause 3, of the same section--"The Congress shall have power to declare the punishment of treason; but no attainder of treason shall work corruption of blood, or forfeiture, except during the life of the person attained".
CONSTITUTION: ARTICLE 1
SECTION 4, PARAGRAPH 1
The times, places and manner of holding elections for senators and representatives, shall be prescribed in each state by the legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by law make or alter such regulations, except as to the place of choosing senators.
Federalist Papers, Excerpts:
No. 59, Par. 1, Alexander Hamilton:
The natural order of the subject leads us to consider, in this place, that provision of the Constitution which authorizes the national legislature to regulate, in the last resort, the election of its own members. It is in these words: "The times, places, and manner of holding elections for senators and representatives shall be prescribed in each State by the legislature thereof; but the Congress may, at any time, by law, make or alter such regulations, except as to the places of choosing senators". (1st clause, 4th section, of the 1st article.) This provision has not only been declaimed against by those who condemn the Constitution in the gross; but it has been censured by those who have objected with less latitude and greater moderation; and, in one instance, it has been thought exceptionable by a gentleman who had declared himself the advocate of every other part of the system.
I am greatly mistaken, notwithstanding, if there be any article in the whole plan more completely defensible than this. Its propriety rests upon the evidence of this plain proposition, that every government ought to contain in itself the means of its own preservation. Every just reasoner will, at first sight, approve an adherence to this rule, in the work of the convention; and will disapprove every deviation from it which may not appear to have been dictated by the necessity of incorporating into the work some particular ingredient with which a rigid conformity to the rule was incompatible. Even in this case, though he may acquiesce in the necessity, yet he will not cease to regard a departure from so fundamental a principle as a portion of imperfection in the system which may prove the seed of future weakness, and perhaps anarchy.
It will not be alleged that an election law could have been framed and inserted in the Constitution which would have been applicable to every probable change in the situation of the country, and it will therefore not be denied that a discretionary power over elections ought to exist somewhere. It will, I presume, be as readily conceded that there were only three ways in which this power could have been reasonably modified and disposed; that it must either have been lodged wholly in the national legislature, or wholly in the state legislatures; or primarily in the latter and ultimately in the former. The last mode has, with reason, been preferred by the convention. They have submitted the regulation of elections for the federal government, in the first instance, to the local administrations; which, in ordinary cases, and when no improper views prevail, may be both more convenient and more satisfactory; but they may have reserved to the national authority a right to interpose, whenever extraordinary circumstances might render that interposition necessary to its safety.
Nothing can be more evident than that an exclusive power of regulating elections for the national government, in the hands of the State legislatures, would leave the existence of the Union entirely at their mercy. They could at any moment annihilate it by neglecting to provide for the choice of persons to administer its affairs. It is to little purpose to say that a neglect or omission of this kind would not be likely to take place. The constitutional possibility of the thing, without an equivalent for the risk, is an unanswerable objection. Nor has any satisfactory reason been yet assigned for incurring that risk. The extravagant surmises of a distempered jealousy can never be dignified with that character. If we are in a humor to presume abuses of power, it is as fair to presume them on the part of the State governments as on the part of the general government. And as it is more consonant to the rules of a just theory to trust the Union with the care of its own existence than to transfer that care to any other hands, if abuses of power are to be hazarded on the one side or on the other, it is more rational to hazard them where the power would naturally be placed than where it would unnaturally be placed.
Suppose an article had been introduced into the Constitution empowering the United States to regulate the elections for the particular States, would any man have hesitated to condemn it, both as an unwarrantable transposition of power and as a premeditated engine for the destruction of the State governments? The violation of principle, in this case, would have required no comment and, to an unbiased observer, it will not be less apparent in the project of subjecting the existence of the national government, into similar respect, to the pleasure of the State governments. An impartial view of the matter cannot fail to result in a conviction that each, as far as possible, ought to depend on itself for its own preservation.
As an objection to this position, it may be remarked that the constitution of the national Senate would involve, in its full extent, the danger which it is suggested might flow from an exclusive power in the State legislatures to regulate the federal elections. It may be alleged that by declining the appointment of senators they might at any time give a fatal blow to the Union; and from this it may be inferred that as its existence would be thus rendered dependent upon them in so essential a point, there can be no objection to intrusting them with it in the particular case under consideration. The interest of each State, it may be added, to maintain its representation in the national councils, would be a complete security against an abuse of the trust.
This argument, though specious, will not, upon examination, be found solid. It is certainly true that the State legislatures, by forbearing the appointment of senators, may destroy the national government. But it will not follow that, because they have the power to do this in one instance, they ought to have it in every other. There are cases in which the pernicious tendency of such a power may be far more decisive, without any motive equally cogent with that which must have regulated the conduct of the convention in respect to the construction of the Senate to recommend their admission into the system. So far as that construction may expose the Union to the possibility of injury from the State legislatures, it is an evil; but it is an evil which could not have been avoided without excluding the States, in their political capacities, wholly from a place in the organization of the national government. If this had been done it would doubtless have been interpreted into an entire dereliction of the federal principle, and would certainly have deprived the State governments of that absolute safeguard which they will enjoy under this provision. But, however wise it may have been to have submitted in this instance to an inconvenience, for the attainment of a necessary advantage or a greater good, no inference can be drawn from thence to favor an accumulation of the evil, where no necessity urges, nor any greater good invites.
It may easily be discerned also that the national government would run a much greater risk from a power in the State legislature over the elections of its House of Representatives than from their power of appointing the members of its Senate. The senators are to be chosen for the period of six years; there is to be a rotation, by which the seats of a third part of them are to be vacated and replenished every two years; and no State is to be entitled to more than two senators; a quorum of the body is to consist of sixteen members. The joint result of these circumstances would be that a temporary combination of a few States to intermit the appointment of senators could neither annul the existence nor impair the activity of the body; and it is not from a general or permanent combination of the States that we can have anything to fear. The first might proceed from sinister designs in the leading members of a few of the State legislatures; the last would suppose a fixed and rooted disaffection in the great body of the people which will either never exist at all, or will, in all probability, proceed from an experience of the inaptitude of the general government to the advancement of their happiness--in which event no good citizen could desire its continuance.
But with regard to the federal House of Representatives, there is intended to be a general election of members once in two years. If the State legislatures were to be invested with an exclusive power of regulating these elections, every period of making them would be a delicate crisis in the national situation, which might issue in a dissolution of the Union, if the leaders of a few of the most important States should have entered into a previous conspiracy to prevent an election.
I shall not deny that there is a degree of weight in the observation that the interests of each State, to be represented in the federal councils, will be a security against the abuse of a power over its elections in the hands of the State legislatures. But the security will not be considered as complete by those who attend to the force of an obvious distinction between the interests of the people in the public felicity and the interest of their local rulers in the power and consequence of their offices. The people of America may be warmly attached to the government of the Union, at times when the particular rulers of particular States, stimulated by the natural rivalship of power and by the hopes of personal aggrandizement and supported by a strong faction in each of those States, may be in a very opposite temper. This diversity of sentiment between a majority of the people and the individuals who have the greatest credit in their councils is exemplified in some of the States at the present moment, on the present question. The scheme of separate confederacies, which will always multiply the chances of ambition, will be a never-failing bait to all such influential characters in the State administrations as are capable of preferring their own emolument and advancement to the public weal. With so effectual a weapon in their hands as the exclusive power of regulating elections for the national government, a combination of a few such men, in a few of the most considerable States, where the temptation will always be the strongest, might accomplish the destruction of the Union by seizing the opportunity of some casual dissatisfaction among the people (and which perhaps they may themselves have excited) to discontinue the choice of members of the federal House of Representatives. It ought never to be forgotten that a firm union of this country, under an efficient government, will probably be an increasing object of jealousy to more than one nation of Europe; and that enterprises to subvert it will sometimes originate in the intrigues of foreign powers and will seldom fail to be patronized and abetted by some of them. Its preservation, therefore, ought, in no case that can be avoided, be committed to the guardianship of any but those whose situation will uniformly beget an immediate interest in the faithful and vigilant performance of the trust. PUBLIUS
No. 60, Par. 1, Alexander Hamilton:
We have seen that an uncontrollable power over the elections to the federal government could not, without hazard, be committed to the State legislatures. Let us now see what would be the danger on the other side; that is, from confiding the ultimate right of regulating its own elections to the Union itself. It is not pretended that this right would ever be used for the exclusion of any State from its share in the representation. The interest of all would, in this respect at least, be the security of all. But it is alleged that it might be employed in such a manner as to promote the election of some favorite class of men in exclusion of others by confining the places of election to particular districts and rendering it impracticable to the citizens at large to partake in the choice. Of all chimerical suppositions, this seems to be the most chimerical. On the one hand, no rational calculation of probabilities would lead us to imagine that the disposition which a conduct so violent and extraordinary would imply could ever find its way into the national councils; and on the other it may be concluded with certainty that if so improper a spirit should ever gain admittance into them, it would display itself in a form altogether different and far more decisive.
The improbability of the attempt may be satisfactorily inferred from this single reflection, that it could never be made without causing an immediate revolt of the great body of the people, headed and directed by the State governments. It is not difficult to conceive that this characteristic right of freedom may, in certain turbulent and factious seasons, be violated, in respect to a particular class of citizens, by a victorious majority; but that so fundamental a privilege, in a country so situated and enlightened, should be invaded to the prejudice of the great mass of the people by the deliberate policy of the government without occasioning a popular revolution, is altogether inconceivable and incredible.
In addition to this general reflection, there are considerations of a more precise nature which forbid all apprehension on the subject. The dissimilarity in the ingredients which will compose the national government, and still more in the manner in which they will be brought into action in its various branches, must form a powerful obstacle to a concert of views in any partial scheme of elections. There is sufficient diversity in the state of property, in the genius, manners, and habits of the people of the different parts of the Union to occasion a material diversity of disposition in their representatives towards the different ranks and conditions in society. And though an intimate intercourse under the same government will promote a gradual assimilation of temper and sentiments, yet there are causes, as well physical as moral, which may, in a greater or less degree, permanently nourish different propensities and inclinations in this particular. But the circumstance which will be likely to have the greatest influence in the matter will be the dissimilar modes of constituting the several component parts of the government. The House of Representatives' being to be elected immediately by the people, the Senate by the State legislatures, the President by electors chosen for that purpose by the people, there would be little probability of a common interest to cement these different branches in a predilection for any particular class of electors.
As to the Senate, it is impossible that any regulation of "time and manner", which is all that is proposed to be submitted to the national government in respect to that body, can affect the spirit which will direct the choice of its members. The collective sense of the State legislatures can never be influenced by extraneous circumstances of that sort; a consideration which alone ought to satisfy us that the discrimination apprehended would never be attempted. For what inducement could the Senate have to concur in a preference in which itself would not be included? Or to what purpose would it be established, in reference to one branch of the legislature, if it could not be extended to the other? The composition of the one would in this case counteract that of the other. And we can never suppose that it would embrace the appointments to the Senate unless we can at the same time suppose the voluntary co-operation of the State legislatures. If we make the latter supposition, it then becomes immaterial where the power in question is placed--whether in their hands or in those of the Union.
But what is to be the object of this capricious partiality in the national councils? Is it to be exercised in a discrimination between the different departments of industry, or between the different kinds of property, or between the different degrees of property? Will it lean in favor of the landed interest, or the moneyed interest, or the mercantile interest, or the manufacturing interest? Or, to speak in the fashionable language of the adversaries to the Constitution, will it court the elevation of the "wealthy and the well-born", to the exclusion and debasement of all the rest of the society?
If this partiality is to be exerted in favor of those who are concerned in any particular description of industry or property, I presume it will readily be admitted that the competition for it will lie between landed men and merchants. And I scruple not to affirm that it is infinitely less likely that either of them should gain an ascendant in the national councils, than that the one or the other of them should predominate in all the local councils. The inference will be that a conduct tending to give an undue preference to either is much less to be dreaded from the former than from the latter.
The several States are in various degrees addicted to agriculture and commerce. In most, if not all of them, agriculture is predominant. In a few of them, however, commerce nearly divides its empire, and in most of them has a considerable share of influence. In proportion as either prevails, it will be conveyed into the national representation; and for the very reason that this will be an emanation from a greater variety of interests and in much more various proportions than are to be found in any single State, it will be much less apt to espouse either of them with a decided partiality than the representation of any single State.
In a country consisting chiefly of the cultivators of land, where the rules of an equal representation obtain, the landed interest must, upon the whole, preponderate in the government. As long as this interest prevails in most of the State legislatures, so long it must maintain a correspondent superiority in the national Senate, which will generally be a faithful copy of the majorities of those assemblies. It cannot therefore be presumed that a sacrifice of the landed to the mercantile class will ever be a favorite object of this branch of the federal legislature. In applying thus particularly to the Senate a general observation suggested by the situation of the country, I am governed by the consideration that the credulous votaries of State power cannot, upon their own principles, suspect that the State legislatures would be warped from their duty by any external influence. But in reality the same situation must have the same effect, in the primitive composition at least of the federal House of Representatives: an improper bias towards the mercantile class is as little to be expected from this quarter as from the other.
In order, perhaps, to give countenance to the objection, at any rate, it may be asked, is there not danger of an opposite bias in the national government, which may dispose it to endeavor to secure a monopoly of the federal administration to the landed class? As there is little likelihood that the supposition of such a bias will have any terrors for those who would be immediately injured by it, a labored answer to this question will be dispensed with. It will be sufficient to remark, first, that for the reasons elsewhere assigned it is less likely that any decided partiality should prevail in the councils of the Union than in those of any of its members. Secondly, that there would be no temptation to violate the Constitution in favor of the landed class, because that class would, in the natural course of things, enjoy as great a preponderancy as itself could desire. And thirdly, that men accustomed to investigate the sources of public prosperity upon a large scale must be too well convinced of the utility of commerce to be inclined to inflict upon it so deep a wound as would be occasioned by the entire exclusion of those who would best understand its interest from a share in the management of them. The importance of commerce, in the view of revenue alone, must effectually guard it against the enmity of a body which would be continually importuned in its favor by the urgent calls of public necessity.
I rather consult brevity in discussing the probability of a preference founded upon a discrimination between the different kinds of industry and property, because, as far as I understand the meaning of the objectors, they contemplate a discrimination of another kind. They appear to have in view, as the objects of the preference with which they endeavor to alarm us, those whom they designate by the description of the "wealthy and the well-born". These, it seems, are to be exalted to an odious preeminence over the rest of their fellow-citizens. At one time, however, their elevation is to be a necessary consequence of the smallness of the representative body; at another time it is to be effected by depriving the people at large of the opportunity of exercising their right of suffrage in the choice of that body.
But upon what principle is the discrimination of the places of election to be made, in order to answer the purpose of the mediated preference? Are the wealthy and the well-born, as they are called, confined to particular spots in the several States? Have they, by some miraculous instinct or foresight, set apart in each of them a common place of residence? Are they only to be met with in the towns or cities? Or are they, on the contrary, scattered over the face of the country as avarice or chance may have happened to cast their own lot or that of their predecessors? If the latter is the case (as every intelligent man knows it to be [Particularly in the Southern States and in this State]), is it not evident that the policy of confining the places of elections to particular districts would be as subversive of its own aim as it would be exceptionable on every other account? The truth is that there is no method of securing to the rich the preference apprehended but by prescribing qualifications of property either for those who may elect or be elected. But this forms no part of the power to be conferred upon the national government. Its authority would be expressly restricted to the regulation of the times, the places, and the manner of elections. The qualifications of the persons who may choose or be chosen, as has been remarked upon other occasions, are defined and fixed in the Constitution, and are unalterable by the legislature.
Let it, however, be admitted, for argument sake, that the expedient suggested might be successful; and let it at the same time be equally taken for granted that all the scruples which a sense of duty or an apprehension of the danger of the experiment might inspire were overcome in the breasts of the national rulers, still I imagine it will hardly be pretended that they could ever hope to carry such an enterprise into execution without the aid of a military force sufficient to subdue the resistance of the great body of the people. The improbability of the existence of a force equal to that object has been discussed and demonstrated in different parts of these papers; but that the futility of the objection under consideration may appear in the strongest light, it shall be conceded for a moment that such a force might exist and the national government shall be supposed to be in the actual possession of it. What will be the conclusion? With a disposition to invade the essential rights of the community and with the means of gratifying that disposition, is it presumable that the persons who were actuated by it would amuse themselves in the ridiculous task of fabricating election laws for securing a preference to a favorite class of men? Would they not be likely to prefer a conduct better adapted to their own immediate aggrandizement? Would they not rather boldly resolve to perpetuate themselves in office by one decisive act of usurpation, than to trust to precarious expedients which, in spite of all the precautions that might accompany them, might terminate in the dismission, disgrace, and ruin of their authors? Would they not fear that citizens, not less tenacious than conscious of their rights, would flock from the remotest extremes of their respective States to the places of election, to overthrow their tyrants and to substitute men who would be disposed to avenge the violated majesty of the people? PUBLIUS
No. 61, Par. 1, Alexander Hamilton:
The more candid opposers of the provisions respecting elections contained in the plan of the convention, when pressed in argument, will sometimes concede the propriety of that provision; with this qualification, however, that it ought to have been accompanied with a declaration that all elections should be had in the counties where the electors resided. This, say they, was a necessary precaution against an abuse of the power. A declaration of this nature would certainly have been harmless, so far as it might not have been undesirable. But it would, in fact, have afforded little or no additional security against the danger apprehended; and the want of it will never be considered by an impartial and judicious examiner as a serious, still less as an insuperable, objection to the plan. The different views taken of the subject in the two preceding papers must be sufficient to satisfy all dispassionate and discerning men, that if the public liberty should ever be the victim of the ambition of the national rulers, the power under examination, at least, will be guiltless of the sacrifice.
If those who are inclined to consult their jealousy only would exercise it in a careful inspection of the several State constitutions, they would find little less room for disquietude and alarm from the latitude which most of them allow in respect to elections than from the latitude which is proposed to be allowed to the national government in the same respect. A review of their situation, in this particular, would tend greatly to remove any ill impressions which may remain in regard to this matter. But as that view would lead into long and tedious details, I shall content myself with the single example of the State in which I write. The constitution of New York makes no other provision for locality of elections than that the members of the Assembly shall be elected in the counties; those of the Senate, in the great districts into which the State is or may be divided: these at present are four in number and comprehend each from two to six counties. It may readily be perceived that it would not be more difficult to the legislature of New York to defeat the suffrages of the citizens of New York by confining elections to particular places than for the legislature of the United States to defeat the suffrages of the citizens of the Union by the like expedient. Suppose, for instance, the city of Albany was to be appointed the sole place of election for the country and district of which it is a part, would not the inhabitants of that city speedily become the only electors of the members both of the Senate and Assembly for that county and district? Can we imagine that the electors who reside in the remote subdivisions of the counties of Albany, Saratoga, Cambridge, etc., or in any part of the county of Montgomery, would take the trouble to come to the city of Albany to give their votes for members of the Assembly or Senate sooner than they would repair to the city of New York to participate in the choice of the members of the federal House of Representatives? The alarming indifference discoverable in the exercise of so invaluable a privilege under the existing laws, which afford every facility to it, furnishes a ready answer to this question. And, abstracted from any experience on the subject, we can be at no loss to determine that when the place of election is at an inconvenient distance from the elector, the effect upon his conduct will be the same whether that distance be twenty miles or twenty thousand miles. Hence it must appear that objections to the particular modification of the federal power of regulating elections will, in substance, apply with equal force to the modification of the like power in the constitution of this State; and for this reason it will be impossible to acquit the one and to condemn the other. A similar comparison would lead to the same conclusion in respect to the constitutions of most of the other States.
If it should be said that defects in the State constitutions furnish no apology for those which are to be found in the plan proposed, I answer that as the former have never been thought chargeable with inattention to the security of liberty, where the imputations thrown on the latter can be shown to be applicable to them also, the presumption is that they are rather the cavilling refinements of a predetermined opposition than the well-founded inferences of a candid research after truth. To those who are disposed to consider, as innocent omissions in the State constitutions, what they regard as unpardonable blemishes in the plan of the convention, nothing can be said; or at most, they can only be asked to assign some substantial reason why the representatives of the people in a single State should be more impregnable to the lust of power, or other sinister motives, than the representatives of the people of the United States? If they cannot do this, they ought at least to prove to us that it is easier to subvert the liberties of three millions of people, with the advantage of local governments to head their opposition, than of two hundred thousand people who are destitute of that advantage. And in relation to the point immediately under consideration, they ought to convince us that it is less probable that a predominant faction in a single State should, in order to maintain its superiority, incline to a preference of a particular class of electors, than that a similar spirit should take possession of the representatives of thirteen States, spread over a vast region, and in several respects distinguishable from each other by a diversity of local circumstances, prejudices and interests.
Hitherto my observations have only aimed at a vindication of the provision in question on the ground of theoretic propriety, on that of the danger of placing the power elsewhere, and on that of the safety of placing it in the manner proposed. But there remains to be mentioned a positive advantage which will result from this disposition and which could not as well have been obtained from any other: I allude to the circumstance to uniformity in the time of elections for the federal House of Representatives. It is more than possible that this uniformity may be found by experience to be of great importance to the public welfare, both as a security against the perpetuation of the same spirit in the body, and as a cure for the disease of faction. If each State may choose its own time of election it is possible there may be at least as many different periods as there are months in the year. The times of election in the several States, as they are now established for local purposes, vary between extremes as wide as March and November. The consequence of this diversity would be that there could never happen a total dissolution of renovation of the body at one time. If an improper spirit of any kind should happen to prevail in it, that spirit would be apt to infuse itself into the new members, as they come forward in succession. The mass would likely to remain nearly the same, assimilating constantly to itself its gradual accretions. There is a contagion in example which few men have sufficient force of mind to resist. I am inclined to think that treble the duration in office, with the condition of a total dissolution of the body at the same time, might be less formidable to liberty than one third of that duration subject to gradual and successive alterations.
Uniformity in the time of elections seems not less requisite for executing the idea of a regular rotation in the Senate, and for conveniently assembling the legislature at a stated period in each year.
It may be asked, "Why, then, could not a time have been fixed in the Constitution?" As the most zealous adversaries of the plan of the convention in this State are, in general, not less zealous admirers of the constitution of the State, the question may be retorted, and it may be asked, Why was not a time for the like purpose fixed in the constitution of this State? No better answer can be given than that it was a matter which might safely be intrusted to legislative discretion; and that if a time had been appointed, it might, upon experiment, have been found less convenient than some other time. The same answer may be given to the question put on the other side. And it may be added that the supposed anger of a gradual change being merely speculative, it would have been hardly advisable upon that speculation to establish, as a fundamental point, what would deprive several States of the convenience of having the elections for their own governments and for the national government at the same epoch. PUBLIUS
CONSTITUTION: ARTICLE 1
SECTION 4, PARAGRAPH 2
The Congress shall assemble at least once in every Year, and such Meeting shall be on the first Monday in December, unless they shall by Law appoint a different Day.
Federalist Papers, No Comment.
END OF CHAPTER SIX