A Summary of the Booklet “Restoring the Rights of the States and the People”

 by Edward Ulrich, updated September 23, 2022



[Note: September 23, 2022— I have updated the link to purchase the booklet.]

The 38 page booklet “Restoring the Rights of the States and the People” explains how the political system of the United States has migrated away from following the structure that has been specified in the U.S. Constitution, and it explains how elements of the current political system could be moved toward being restored to their original Constitutional principals.

The governmental system of United States was originally designed by the Framers of the U.S. Constitution to be a union of independent states, with most of the power belonging to the individual states, and with the Federal Government being intentionally very limited in its powers.

The political configuration of the United States currently consists of much of its power resting in a centralized Federal Government, which is a configuration that the Framers were strongly opposed to and went to great lengths to limit through the laws they created in the Constitution.

The booklet explains major points in the history of the U.S. government’s migration from its originally designed configuration in 1787 to how it is configured today, explaining the rationalized excuses and illegal methods that have been used by elements of the political system of the United States in order to implement legislation that is contrary to the laws and intentions of the Framers of the Constitution.

Methods are then described that can be used by citizens and politicians to move the government toward restoring key elements of its originally planned configuration as laid out by the Founders.

This booklet has been written by John McManus, and is distributed by The John Birch Society.

[Editor's Note, updated September 19, 2022— This booklet is very informative about the differences between how the U.S. Constitution has been specified and how American society is structured today.  Major socialist agendas have been implemented in the United States during the past two centuries which exist contrary to the specifications of the Constitution.  Many of such agendas are pointed to as being helpful for society, and it is true that some have been helpful, however those agendas have been implemented by making use of dishonest interpretations of the Constitution at the expense of such goals being reached by better methods.  Often it is shown that such implementations contain deceptive and dangerous ulterior motives that are designed to ultimately destroy the sovereignty of the United States in order to empower a tyrannical one world government.]

Also view the documentary video Overview of America.














Introduction

This section introduces the subject of the Federal Government of the United States being involved in the lives of citizens in unconstitutional ways which is causing problems such as creating an out of control national debt.

Following are key points from the section:


— The Federal Government is involved in the lives of citizens in many unconstitutional ways at a cost of creating a national debt of $12 trillion, which rises to $100 trillion when unfunded obligations such as Social Security and Medicare are figured in.  This places a tremendous burden on the shoulders of Americans today and in the future.  If the rules laid out in the Constitution were actually enforced, the Federal Government would be at most only 20 percent of its size and 20 percent of its cost.








The Tenth Amendment

This section describes the Bill of Rights, which are the first ten amendments to the Constitution that are meant to be prohibitions on government power.  The Tenth Amendment states that if the Constitution does not specifically authorize the government to engage in some activity, then the government is not allowed to do it; however Congress has a long history of violating the Tenth Amendment by implementing types of agendas that the Framers of the Constitution specifically intended to guard against, such as centralizing control of the Federal Government over the states through the creation of government programs, and engaging in overseas conflicts since World War II without formal declarations of war.

Following are key points from the section:


— The “Bill of Rights” is the first ten amendments to the Constitution, and those amendments are actually “prohibitions” on the government’s power rather than definitions of “rights” for people that are assumed to already be God-given.

— The Tenth Amendment states, “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”— which means that if federal officials haven’t received specific authorization to have the government engage in some activity, then they cannot do it.

— Examples of violations of the Tenth Amendment include Congress supplying foreign aid to other countries in ways that are not constitutionally legal, as well as the unlawful establishment of the Federal Reserve banking system and federally supplied housing, medicine, education, transportation, and energy.  Despite such programs being unconstitutional, the states are currently required to carry out those federal mandates which need to be paid for with local taxes.  [Note: Benefits resulting from such programs can be pointed to by proponents, however the issue is the structure of the programs and the manner in which the programs are implemented.  Often it is shown that such programs exist for ulterior motives such as incrementally moving to dissolve the sovereignty of United States in favor of a world government, when in fact the same benefits of those programs could be directly supplied through other means which would be Constitutionally legal.]

— The Constitution has delegated the ability to declare war only to Congress, but despite no such declaration being issued since World War II, the United States has continually been involved in overseas conflicts which usually have been authorized by the United Nations Security Council— which is a huge departure from the U.S. Constitution.

— Tens of millions of undocumented immigrants are living and working in the United States, and it is unconstitutional for the government to support them doing so.

— From the text: “...  Generally speaking, what our Federal Government is supposed to do, it doesn’t.  And what government is Constitutionally prohibited from doing, it does with reckless abandon.  Simply stated, the nation cannot continue along this suicidal path.  What has occurred, of course, isn’t a conservative or liberal issue.  All Americans should be vitally concerned, both about distain for the Constitution and disregard of the oath to adhere to it.  ...  How do our federal officials explain their widespread circumventing of the solemn oath?  Actually, most don’t bother to explain, counting on the public’s lack of familiarity with the Constitution’s provisions.  ...”








The Legacy of John Marshall

The section describes the activities of the Supreme Court Chief Justice John Marshall, who authored many dangerous innovations and interpretations of the Constitution during the first part of the 19th century which have since been used to circumvent many of the original intentions of the Framers who designed it.  Marshall’s activities shifted power from the states to the federal level in ways that the Framers of the Constitution specifically sought to block.

Following are key points from the section:


— Chief Justice John Marshall had been the longest serving Justice on the Supreme Court, serving from 1801 to 1835, and during that time he authored many dangerous innovations to the Constitution that opened the door for serious circumventing of its laws.

— In 1816, Marshall presided over the case McCulloch v. Maryland, where a state bank sued a federal bank within its borders to pay taxes to the state, but Marshall found in favor of the federal bank, saying that the Federal Government can do anything the Constitution does not specifically bar it from doing.  From the text: “..  the new Marshall-created interpretation sanctioned the usurpation of a vast array of powers never envisioned by 1) the men who created the Constitution, 2) the various State ratifiers who approved it, 3) the people of the time who understood it, 4) constitutional scholars then and today who have never found what Marshall claimed to see in its carefully written pages.”

— From the text: “Constitutional scholar Edward Albertson reported in his 1975 monograph, The Sabotage of the Tenth Amendment, that Marshall relied on the absence of the word “expressly” in the Tenth to completely gut this most important portion of the Constitution.”

— The Framers of the Constitution sought only a loosely constructed Union of the states with only enough central authority to assure mutual defense and orderly conduct among the states.

— James Madison who was known as the “Father of the Constitution” wrote that the greatest reservoir of power should be at the state level rather than the federal level, and also the Founders wanted “competition” amongst the states, which would allow for states to make their own mistakes in order for the best way of being to be derived over time, rather than all power being placed in the hands of a central government.








The Constitution Circumvented

This section explains that the laws of the Constitution are illegally being circumvented with false excuses such as claims that “the government of the United States can do whatever it wants as long as it is not prohibited by the Constitution,” with an example given of the unconstitutional existence of the Federal Reserve banking system, along with other examples.

Following are key points from the section:


— In 1944, during a strike of workers at the Montgomery Ward company, Chairman Sewell Avery was picked up by his office chair and placed on the sidewalk outside the building by soldiers, with Attorney General Francis Biddle saying: “The government of the United States can do anything not specifically prohibited by the Constitution.”— which is a serious misinterpretation that would justify activities such as ones partaken by Hitler, Stalin, and Mao Tse-tung.  From the text: “The possibilities of advancing federal power are endless if a specific need to bar every claim of such activity is required.”

— In 1993, Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan sent a letter to then-Congressman James Greenwood of Pennsylvania saying, “... the Federal Government is not limited in what it may designate as legal tender,” despite the existence of several monetary initiates in the Constitution such as Article I, Section 9.

— From the text: “Sadly to say, the Marshall-Biddle-Greenspan attitude is commonly held by many of our nation’s legislatures, judges, media personalities, teachers, and others.  Ask a congressman where authority is granted for federal involvement in a host of areas and be prepared for a response that effectively states, ‘We’re not prohibted from doing [such-and-such], and federal activity is certainly needed.’”








More Marshall Mischief

This section describes additional methods that are used to circumvent the laws of the Constitution as first implemented by Chief Justice John Marshall, who reinterpreted the Constitution based on any excuse possible such as claiming significance of the absence of the word “expressly” in a particular passage; and he also stated that the original intent of the Framers is not a factor that needs to be taken into consideration in interpreting what they wrote, despite Thomas Jefferson specifically stating that the original intent must be honored.

Following are key points from the section:


— In addition to John Marshall re-interpreting the meaning of the Constitution due to the absence of the word “expressly,” he also challenged the need for adhering to the original intent of the authors, as he did in a 1824 decision where he wrote: “The instrument contains an enumeration of powers expressly granted by the people to their government.  It has been said that these powers ought to be constructed strictly.  But why ought they be so construed?  Is there one sentence in the constitution which gives countenance to this rule?”

— From the text: “..  But if the words in the basic law of the land are not understood to mean what the Framers meant when they wrote them, and can be given newer meanings to meet newer desires, then why bother recording them in the first place?  Original intent has to be honored or a law is subject to any kind of change one can devise.  This was certainly the attitude of the Founders, though few expressed it because the concept was so generally accepted at the time.  Even so, Thomas Jefferson felt the need to address the issue soon after assuming the office of President in 1801.  He stated:”

The Constitution on which our Union rests shall be administered by me according to the safe and honest meaning contemplated by the plain understanding of the people of the United States at the time of its adoption — a meaning to be found in the explanations of those who advocated, not those who opposed it ...  These explanations are preserved in the publications of the time.  [Such as in the Federalist Papers]

— Later Jefferson would write about the need for a “strict construction” or “original intent”:










Erroneous Reliance on the “Elastic Clause”

This section describes the use of what is improperly thought of as an “elastic clause” based on the incorrect interpretation of the phrase “foregoing powers” in one of the passages, which Congress uses as an excuse to be interpreted as being an “open-ended” clause that allows them to implement whatever they would like.

Following are key points from the section:


— John Marshall also made use of an “elastic clause” in the Constitution as it appears at the end of Article I, Section 8, Clause 18 which states that Congress shall have power “... to make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers [emphasis added], and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof.”  He used the phrase “foregoing powers” in combination with his intention of ignoring the original meanings of the Framers to interpret it as meaning that Congress could do anything whatsoever as long as Congress deemed it “necessary and proper.”

— Edward Albertson wrote about the issue: “In effect, what he is saying is: ‘Congress may do anything it wants, and the only restriction is on the way it does it.’  And by extension: ‘You may rob a bank, but you may not go through the front door to do it.’”

— The Framers listed 17 previous specific “foregoing powers” that are authorized, and they did not intent for the words “necessary and proper” to be open-ended to mean whatever Congress wishes.








The “General Welfare” Clause

This section describes a misinterpretation of the phrase “provide for the general welfare” from a passage which is used as justification for the Federal Government to centralize power over the states and implement many socialist programs, despite the Constitution being designed to stop the Federal Government from having such authority.

Following are key points from the section:


— Article I, Section 8, Clause 1 of the Constitution authorizes Congress to “provide for the common defense and general welfare,” but the word “welfare” is interpreted differently today than it was when the Constitution was written, with the definition then only being “Happiness; success; prosperity,” referring to the entire nation’s condition of tranquility in order to prosper.

— From the text: “It was not Congress’s place to provide government handouts to people, or to any local or state government.  Yes, there would be some Americans who would fall on hard times and need help.  But providing the kind of help they needed was to be the responsibility of relatives, friends, neighbors, church and community groups, ect.  The Federal Government was given no role in providing what is currently known as ‘welfare.’”  [Note— Many of today’s government welfare programs could be pointed to as examples of being beneficial, and such programs are a political reality that have evolved over time along with American society.  Perhaps if the formation of such social services were re-routed from originating via the government in favor of alternative sources from the onset many decades ago, then major alternative forms of assistance would have taken hold in their place.  In any event, the practical replacement of currently existing government social services by the private sector would be a difficult task.]

— The “general welfare” phrase has also been interpreted to mean issues related to religion, education, and federal highways.  James Madison, who is known as “The Father of the Constitution” was critical of the inclusion of the phrase “general welfare,” and he even predicted its future uses in a speech at the initial session of Congress:



— Early Presidents followed the framer’s interpretation of the term “general welfare” and vetoed government programs accordingly up until as late as President Harding in 1921, who stated, “Just government is merely the guarantee to the people of the right and opportunity to support themselves.”

— Daniel Webster said, “Good intentions will always be pleaded for every assumption of power...  It is hardly too strong to say that the Constitution was made to guard the people against the dangers of good intentions.”








Judicial Usurpation

This section describes the true task of the Justices of the Supreme Court being to uphold the Constitution rather than interpret it in order to forward political agendas; also described is the fact that the Supreme Court should not even be ruling on many cases that it does because those cases are matters of individual states and not the business of the Federal Government.

Following are key points from the section:


— Many decisions rendered by the Supreme Court and lesser federal courts should actually result in no decision at all because the matters which have reached them are often not the business of the Federal Government as defined by the Constitution.

— The true task of Justices is only to uphold the Constitution, not to overly interpret it for their own agendas.  From the text: “Swearing an oath to the Constitution is akin to singing a contract.  After a contract is completed, does either party possess power to interpret it beyond its original agreed meaning?  All of its stipulations must be honored, not reinterpreted.  If a contract can be altered (reinterpreted) at whim by either party, it is worthless and one party has been defrauded.  ...  Interpret the Constitution?  No!  Claim that the meanings of its words have evolved into something not understood when written and agreed to ..  Again, No!  If the Constitution is determined to be deficient and in need of repair, amend it.”

— Thomas Jefferson wanted the basic law to be interpreted exactly as they had specified, and he insisted that no new meanings can be “squeezed out of the text.”

— Nineteenth Century Chief Justice Roger Taney agreed with Jefferson, saying, “Any other rule of construction would ... make it the mere reflex of the popular opinion or passion of the day.”

— Two well known examples that show how the Constitution has been interpreted by judges would be Social Security being sanctioned in 1937, and the legalization of abortion via the Roe Vs. Wade decision in 1973.

— Most Americans are led to believe that the judges are allowed to “squeeze” any meaning they want out of the Constitution via their interpretations, and such an attitude by judges dates back as far as 1803 in a ruling by John Marshall in the case Marbury v. Madison, where Marshall proclaimed the Supreme Court having the final say on what is constitutional and what is not, with his ruling becoming known as “judicial supremacy.”

— Constitutional scholar Edwin S. Cowin wrote about judicial supremacy: “What was once vaunted as a Constitution of rights, both state rights and private rights, has been replaced to a great extent by a Constitution of powers.  The Constitution has shifted base in the direction of a consolidated national power.”

— Thomas Jefferson saw the potential for abuse by unelected justices who served for life while possessing the power of “judicial review.”  In 1821, he expressed his concern as follows:



— Thomas Jefferson also sounded an alarm about the dangers of relying on politicians and judges to do what is right:



— Alexander Hamilton wrote that it was the duty of judges “to declare all acts contrary to the manifest tenor of the Constitution void.”

— Unconstitutional acts of Congress can be declared null and void by the Supreme Court, however an unconstitutional edict issued by the Supreme Court cannot be be nullified by Congress.

— In 1954, the Supreme Court advanced federal power into education with the Brown v. Board of Education ruling, which set an unconstitutional precedent for much increased Federal Government involvement in education which has since often been instrumental in advancing detrimental federal agendas into the education systems of the states.  [Note: Despite the Brown v. Board of Education’s ruling being unconstitutional, the ruling was a case that helped to end racial segregation in the United States.  The John Birch Society’s stance has always been that they are opposed to forced segregation as well as opposed to forced integration, and they have often been misunderstood about such issues over the history of the organization.]








The Constitution’s First Sentence

This section talks about the Constitution not actually giving the Executive or Judicial branches law making powers despite the currently common practice of them doing so, such as when Presidents make use of “executive orders” to create federal agencies and bureaus despite such orders only actually applying to federal employees under their direct jurisdiction.

Following are key points from the section:


— The first sentence of the Constitution states, “All legislative powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives,” which makes no mention of the Judicial Branch or Executive Branches which have usurped the law-making powers that have been granted only to Congress.

— Despite not having the authority to do so, Presidents have made use of executive orders in order to create laws, with an example being President Nixon issuing an executive order to create the Environmental Protection Agency, and many other regulatory agencies and bureaus have been created via executive orders rather than being established through Constitutionally legal means.  Presidents have the right to issue an executive order, but the order should bind only the federal employees under their jurisdiction, such as specifying paid holidays for their employees.

— The only legislative powers granted to the Federal Government by the people appear within the pages of the Constitution, and no mention is made in the Constitution of education, housing, medicine, energy, labor, foreign aid and more.








Treaty Law and the Constitution

This section describes how international treaties are not allowed to replace the Constitution’s power and limitations, despite many doing so.  Quotes by Founders are shown explaining their concern that treaties must not be able to alter Constitutional powers.

Following are key points from the section:


— Treaties can be entered into by the President and approved by two-thirds of the Senators, but treaties cannot replace the Constitution’s powers and limitations.

— Alexander Hamilton said, “The only constitutional exception to the power of making treaties is that it shall not change the Constitution...”

— James Madison said, “I do not conceive that power is given to the President or the Senate to dismember the empire, or alienate any great, essential right.  I do not think the whole legislative authority have this power.”

— Thomas Jefferson said, “I say the same as to the opinion of those who consider the grant of treaty-making power to be boundless.  If it is, then we have no Constitution.”

— Treaty power cannot be over the powers of the Constitution, but it can be over state constitutions.








No Constitutional Convention

This section explains that a “Constitutional Convention” (“con-con”) is a legal method for creating drastic changes to the Constitution which could include potentially completely nullifying it, which has great potential to be abused by corrupt political elites.

Following are key points from the section:


— In recent years, various movements have attempted to correct federal abuses via a “Constitutional Convention,” which is allowed for in article V of the Constitution.  A “con-con” would allow the Constitution to be modified in unlimited ways and even potentially be completely abolished.

— People sometimes advocate to initiate a “con-con” with an excuse of wanting to change only one aspect of the Constitution, but doing so would be dangerous because there would be no restraint on a “con-con” once it is created.  The only time it has ever occurred was in 1787 when the Articles of Confederation was revised to be turned into the current Constitution.  The delegates exceeded their mandate, completely abolished the Articles, and then produced the entirely new Constitution which still exists today.








What Can Be Done

This section describes many steps that can be taken in order to help restore the United States government to a system which more closely follows the original intent of the Framers of the Constitution.  Suggestions made include the establishment of non-governmental associations to help create change; citizens voting for proper candidates who will support the Constitution; the importance of congressmen introducing new legislation which undoes laws and programs that are unconstitutional; impeaching corrupt politicians; restoring the original method of senators being chosen by state legislatures; the importance of members of the House not voting to fund unconstitutional mandates; unconstitutional rulings made by the Supreme Court being overturned by Congress; as well as many other suggestions.

Following are key points from the section:


— Thomas Jefferson commented on the importance of an informed electorate.  He wrote to a colleague in 1820: “I know of no safe depository of the ultimate powers of the society but the people themselves; and if we think them not enlightened enough to exercise their control with a wholesome discretion, the remedy is not to take it from them but to inform their discretion by education.  This is the true corrective of the abuses of Constitutional power.”

— A non-governmental educational association formed by concerned citizens would be helpful.  A government-run organization would not be sufficient to make the necessary changes due to the fact that it would only maintain and enhance government power.

— Following are steps that people can take to help to make a difference:


— In early 2009, the state of Montana had passed a measure showing the Federal Government that it had no power to regulate firearms within the state— as long as the words “made in Montana” appeared on the products.  The Federal Government has pointed to the Interstate Commerce Clause of the U.S. Constitution to justify intervening with the state’s authority, however Montanans state that their bill deals with intrastate commerce, and court challenges are expected.  Similar legislation has been introduced in Utah, Tennessee, Texas, and Alaska.

— All citizens and legislators should demand the needed changes.  Since politicians want to be reelected, they will listen to the wishes of their constituents if the voices are loud enough.