The Supremacy of Individual Sovereignty; The Framers' Wisdom

The formal surrender of the British at Yorktown on 19 October 1781 was preceded by the adoption of the Articles of Confederation (AoC) March 31^st of that same year, creating a rough outline for a federal, centralized government of the new Nation. During the post-war years, there were several “housekeeping” items to attend to which included settling border disputes, reconstruction, economic restructuring and generally growing into Nationhood. The AoC stood as the law of the land and a rough guidance of governance during those 6 years:

American Experiment in the Restoration of Individual Sovereignty:

The Constitutional Convention convened on May 25 and concluded on September 17, 1787 with a first draft. For the next two years, disagreements were worked out over issues including Slavery, Districting, Taxation, Separation of Power and the Question of Rights. This last item, most agreed with although the full extent of language used to identify, establish and then to protect those Rights were not agreed upon until after Ratification in 1789.

The concept of Individual Rights was undergirded by established philosophical concepts including the most fundamental of which was the Sovereignty of the Individual without which there cannot be any legitimate government; that all government grows out of and is populated by the citizenry of Free Men who choose from among their number those who will serve the purpose of the Sovereign.

That purpose, in the USA is first to Support and Defend the Constitution within which is confirmation of the philosophically settled concept of the Sovereign Individual. If then, the concept of the Sovereign Individual is established (which it is), then it surely follows that the Individual’s Rights in this regard are as absolute temporally as God’s are, supernaturally and temporally; unquestioning, uninfringeable.

The Founders were quite clear in their rendering in the Constitution that they were speaking of their audience and those covered in the several Articles of the Constitution in very specific terms:

1.    The People were and remain, a collection of Sovereign Individuals as a subset of humanity, i.e., American Citizens. This is clearly explained in the Preamble although it is also common sense.

(see: https://letthemfight.blogspot.com/2025/11/we-people-preamble-we-people-of-united.html)

 

2.    That the Rights spelled out in the Bill of Rights are specifically of the People who are Sovereign Individuals and Citizens of the United States of America even while the concept is considered universal. These Rights are as much an intrinsic element of the Individual Sovereign’s being as are his Arms, Legs, Ears, Heart, Brain, Fingers, Toes and as much as the air he breathes and the Lungs, he has that move the air within his body.

 

3.    That the Rights codified by the Bill of Rights, are pre-existent and in common for any Sovereign anywhere on earth, which cannot be ethically, morally or legally interfered with (shall not be infringed) by fellow Sovereigns and certainly not by those servants the Sovereign has elected from the citizenry to carry out his directives.

Establishing the Bill of Rights was not a declaration of the beneficence of a higher authority bestowing upon it’s vassals privileges, it was in fact a simply stated listing and acknowledgement of the pre-existence of an established fact and a warning to those who might seek to infringe upon the Sovereign Individual Citizens of the USA  to freely engage their naturally occurring Rights/Philosophical Limbs and call back to the events of April 19^th, 1775.

The importance of the influence of Biblical teachings on the Founders cannot be overstated. The one side of the debate needs to expunge this element from the history of the USA and body politic; removing it as a mighty legal tool to delegitimize the rendering of the Constitution and specifically the Bill of Rights to allow them to dilute the Nation into something the Founders would not recognize. Until they win this fight and events in NYC as of November 4, 2025, should give us pause in this regard, history remains intact.

The Founders were not just Philosophes, they were Christians, Deists, Statesmen, Businessmen, Intellectuals, Historians and generally well read. Their dedication to the concept of Individual Sovereignty didn’t just come from the great Philosophers of their time and in antiquity, those conclusions were bolstered by Biblical Teachings, i.e., 1 Samuel 8, Gen 5:1,2, Gen 9:1 – 6 and at least 30 more verses in the Old and New Testaments which describe God as Sovereign over the entire Universe, over Time, Eternity, Creatures, Mankind, Land, Sea, Air, Space and beyond and his creating us in his image and giving us dominion over the earth.

Adam given all authority:

As we are made in his Image, and based on decrees in these verses, he has made us also Sovereigns over the Earth and surely over ourselves having created us with Free Will, Intellect and a mandate to subdue the earth. Logically, only a Sovereign could wield that kind of power. This begins with God’s command to Adam, Gen 1:26 – 28. While Adam’s sin lost him the luxury of Eden, his responsibilities to God, his family, the earth and creatures,  remained along with a newly “inherited” list of sin-born toil and hardships. Those responsibilities were passed down through his lineage until this very day and are laid upon all of us.

By whatever means a government assumes power, we are also bound to obey that government per Romans 13. However, the catch for us in the United States, is that the Constitution identifies us as the Sovereign having delegated certain authority to the several individuals, we vote for to carry out our desires. As such we have the responsibility of Supervision and Stewardship. That generally comes to us in the form of the Vote. Leaning on the submissive parts of Romans 13 exclusively will not save us from divine chastisement when this government eventually seeks to overstep its authority and to enslave us. We will be held accountable as the Sovereign as well.

Whether someone thinks this is right or wrong is not an issue when you understand that as American Citizens, we have inherited not only the milk and honey but the responsibilities of husbandry as well. The only legitimate way to get released from it is to renounce our citizenship and to seek domicile in a nation more suited to our personal vision of the government/subject contract as did the Israelites when they demanded a King.

Israelites demand a King:

The Bible provides us with many things not the least of which are examples of how to fail. The Old Testament/Tanakh is replete with examples of failure and the cost of failure and none more striking than the story in 1 Samuel 8 where the Israelites demand of Samuel in his old age to choose someone to be their King and to lord over them. Until that moment they had enjoyed autonomy and a direct relationship with God. But now, fear, slothfulness, lack of industriousness, lack of faith set them on a path for the first time, to be subjects of a King who would stand between them and God and at whose feet they would lay their autonomy, tribute, freedom and Individual Sovereignty.

The Israelites never recovered from that decision. They suffered at the hands of ruthless leaders, godless men, incursions, slavery, punishment, hardship, the loss of two Temples, enslavement to the Pharisees, Sanhedrin, Romans, Byzantines. From the 7^th century to the 11^th, the Moslem horde had control with a bit of a respite because of the efforts of the first Crusade, from 1099 – 1187 after which Saladin mounted an assault and reclaimed the land for Islam. It remained in Moslem control until WW I with the defeat of the Ottomans (Turkish Muslim Empire) and control was handed to Britain which they maintained until 14 May 1948 when the UN agreed to establish a sovereign Jewish state of Israel. Since that time, they have been under siege both diplomatically and kinetically and I suspect will remain so.

None of this was lost on the well educated Founders who along with the aforementioned Philosophers hypothesized a correct return to the divinely decreed, natural order of authority and the responsibility it demands, ie, God, Man, Family, Society, Self – in that order but with one acknowledgment of something that had been abandoned all of those millennia before, that God gave dominion to and sovereignty over to Man, the Earth and all that man would grow, cultivate, build, rear, create, including family. Government was an inevitability at this point but not in the vision of kingdoms and religious centric principalities. Government is made possible even essential by the Will of those Sovereign Individuals to do that which they demand and with the limited authority delegated to it, by them.

Delegation versus Surrender:

When you couple that with the conclusions of the great Philosophers, it is clear why the Founders drew up the Bill of Rights with no ambiguity and with such forceful language. It’s because they were convinced and duty bound to ensure their future generations could not have their Freedom and their Sovereignty taken away. The only way their autonomy and inherent Sovereign characteristics could be curtailed or expunged is by willful surrender or failure to remain vigilant or to engage proper custodial stewardship. The entire Constitution delineates the Power of the Sovereign Citizen, the duties and responsibilities of chosen/elected Representatives of and by the Sovereign in this regard and especially their limitations.  

The intent of the Constitution is to describe the enactment of efficacious Legislation, to protect the Nation and the Sovereign Citizen from external and internal threats all while defending, upholding and keeping within the parameters of the Constitution which includes, firstly, the Bill of Rights/the Sovereign’s philosophical limbs because it is ludicrous to envision any Sovereign as being denied those appendages which make him whole and allow him at the very least to engage his Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. (see: https://letthemfight.blogspot.com/2025/11/the-immutable-right-left-has-challenged.html)

Private Property Ownership:

Another Right that convinced the Founders to separate over was the concept of private property ownership. Up until that point, every bit of land was property of the Crown and no one was secure in their homes as the Crown could take their homes at will. Since that time we have crept rapidly back to that time before with the adoption of Eminent Domain, Property Taxes, Inheritance Taxes all for the benefit of the “collective” which are ways of saying; “You don’t own that – we do.”.

How this happened is exactly how the Israelites lost their autonomy, freedom and Individual Sovereignty, succumbing to base urges; fear, slothfulness, greed, jealousy, covetousness, lack of industriousness. They see others having something they want and spend their valuable, fleeting time trying to steal it under the guise of human rights or equitable redistribution.

Mamdani, Omar, AOC, Sanders, Pressly, Tlaib, Omar Fateh, Katie Wilson are not harbingers, they are inevitabilities in a United States Society which eagerly sold its collective soul in the name of inclusiveness and fairness preceded by the shaming of children into seeking the fast food style indoctrination disguised as universally necessary education complete with it’s wall-hanging participation trophy, the Parchment.

These Marxists weren’t miracled into office, they were eagerly sought after by three generations of people eager to make the Israelite’s deal with the Devil; swapping Sovereignty for the promise of a government hovel and three daily bowls of gruel. Mamdani was caught musing the elimination of private property ownership which Katie Wilson in Seattle also champions.

Mamdani, the Shiite, Twelver (in the image of the Iranian Mullahs), Marxist whose chosen religious sect and political ideology are in direct conflict with Constitutional philosophy was voted in by three Leftist, spoiled, self-interested, jealous, hate-filled generations; trained in Marxist infiltrated schools where equitable redistribution/theft is taught instead of mathematics and reading, divisive parsing of society into subsets rather than history, slothful entitlement rather than helping them discover their unique personal strengths, gifting and talents and how to nurture and exploit them for personal gain and societal benefit not to mention personal satisfaction, sense of accomplishment and completion.  

Sovereign Responsibility:

One of the very few truisms in the Marvel series comes from the Spiderman movies;  “with great power comes great responsibility”. We simply cannot separate our Divinely bestowed gift of Sovereignty from the responsibility of Delegation, Supervision, Stewardship, Training our children in the same, Willingness to defend it, Seeking our natural talents and those of our children and guiding them in that specific direction rather than abdicating in favor of those whose intent is indoctrination rather than education; to simply dictate to them what they should believe as opposed to fostering critical thinking, questioning, and independent decision-making skills.

Demanding unsupervised independence with a government supplied safety net isn't an expression of mature Sovereignty, it's the very definition of an irresponsible, petulant child; demanding autonomy and undivided attention while shirking all responsibility for themselves or the fallout from their decisions.

Whether or not we can find our way back to our Founding vision is uncertain. At the very least it will be painful and may well see a prelude of our own wilderness experience, filled with deprivation, hunger, sickness, heavy handed government and a bloody fight to regain what these generations and three generations of slothful parenting, Marxist insinuation in schools and a stewardship failure of the Sovereigns have wrought.

Semper Fidelis;

John Bernard  

We the People

The Preamble: “We (the) People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common Defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to Ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.”

These three words establish the intended use and definition of the phrase the People as a very specific subset of humanity, ie, “of the United States”, ie, citizens rather than the painfully stretched definition the Left contends to include all those who find themselves here as permissive guests or by surreptitious entry.

Those words also begin laying out the unified vision for a brand-new Nation, raised up from the ashes of an armed Revolt of a People from their rightful if not oppressive government. Three words, the meaning of which, for most of our history were taken for granted; recently questioned for its founding intent as either too narrowly focused or intended to be globally applied.

The Founders relied on contemporaries like Burke, Locke, Hobbes, Coke, Montesquieu and Rousseau as well as Philosophers in Antiquity like Plato and Socrates to build on the concept of the social contract emanating from the agreement between free men for there can be no other legitimate expression of a free, deliberative, protective government unless it is first established by the very free men whom that government is established to protect.

When they first convened in May of 1787, to establish the framework for governance, its responsibilities and limitations, they determined to start with whole cloth versus simply cutting and pasting from established works like the Articles of Confederation like some had proposed. Their approach was simple, time honored and built using accepted rhetorical tools; Logic, Progression, Redundancy where needed, Concise Language. They approached the document as if building upon precepts established in documents and from language they had already used and accepted like in the Articles and the Declaration of Independence.

The Preamble identifies the purpose, establishes the source of authority, the principle duties of the new government and one narrow definition: the People. Considering they had just engaged in a Revolt to secure for themselves the Right to chart their own destiny and to establish themselves as a new Nation, it would be entirely illogical, arrogant and presumptuous to use a universal definition of People even while the philosophy underpinning their claim, is a universal one. The US Constitution then, is for the governance and the limitations of that government delegated by an uniquely American People/Citizenry, for the Establishment, Tranquility, Defense and Security of the newly formed United States of America.

Each of the Articles and Amendments to the Constitution use progression and redundancy as tools to emphasize their intent and to revisit their definitions when reusing certain words and phrases which show up earlier in the document. The word “People” has been bandied about to muddy clarity and win converts to the idea that the word is pluralistic in its use and applies to the entirety of the global population to justify all of whom might breach our borders and squat here, without deliberative permission.

From that first sentence of the Preamble, the definition of the word People, is clearly narrow in scope and refers only to those establishing the Nation and their Posterity. Section I of the 14th Amendment then expands that definition to include those Immigrants who are also Naturalized as citizens by Legal Process. Thus the contextual meaning of the phrase “The People” equals Citizenry. Nowhere does the context change in Section I, either linguistically, stated expansion of the definition or omission.

The past three generations of youth having been fed a steady diet of the Gene Roddenberry science fiction construct of an altruistic, utopian, United Federation of Planets reinforced with Academia’s teaching that the essence of Socialism and even Communism are the manifestations of that fantasy; suggesting not only of it being possible, but anyone being of low moral character for not being willing to sacrifice your essential Liberty (Rights and Private Ownership of Property) to help bring the Star Trek fantasy/global Utopia to fruition. This, despite the entire breadth and depth of history, revealing precisely the opposite. It is astonishing that any Nation has survived the 200-year mark much less our approaching 250 given man’s capacity to self-destruct and even to demand his own enslavement. Even the Bible’s core message is the almost comical inability of mankind to keep 10, basic rules much less the 700 that the Israelites heaped onto themselves.

In fact, the entire Old Testament can be summed up in two words: continual failure. There is no historical evidence of people evolving or of a maintained Altruistic spirit, no Utopia and surely no evidence of men – or women who didn’t succumb to the base desires of the heart; Lust, Jealousy, Depravity, Self-aggrandizement, Power Mongering, Envy, Murder, etc. Even IF Communism or its little sister, Socialism could be justified, where are the men and women, pure of heart that would be assigned to guide it and guard against abuse? Pelosi, Schumer, Waltz, Harris, Schiff, Obama, Biden, Bill or Hillary (to name a few) none of whom ever held a job in the private sector or contributed one once of personal effort to the GDP having leeched off the Taxpayer teat their entire lives and who are all, mysteriously multi-millionaires? They are not unique in their self-concern, they are in fact reminders of the unquenchable, uncontrollable, universal affliction of all men and women spanning the entire history of mankind; past, present and future.

Its unfortunate that the Academics don’t spend at least as much time teaching English Grammar much less history. If they did, NYC might not be poised to vote for their first Constitutionally antithetical Muslim/Shiite/Twelver/Communist and there might be more support for ICE and outrage toward the Democrats for causing the problem ICE Agents are now saddled with correcting. But then those teachers and professors were once students having been fed a steady diet of freedom ending indoc diatribe from their first mentors/professors who were also fed in kind.

This problem we have been witnessing is neither new nor recent. It has been simmering for our entire existence as a Nation as evidenced by the disagreements amongst the Founders and the final battle of the Revolution fought a scant 84 years later in the Civil War. While the North used Slavery as the battle cry to energize an entire generation to fight, the South focused on the Sanctity of State Sovereignty.

That war laid to rest the argument as to whether the State or a Federal, centralized government would be the supreme authority even while maintaining those pesky definitions including that of the use of the word People.

Semper Fidelis;

John Bernard

The Immutable Right

The Left has challenged the very definition of a Right since before the signing of the Constitution in 1789. The origin of the concept of the Individual’s Right is as old as humanity. The philosophy underpinning the declarations of the preeminence and immutability of Rights has certainly evolved over time but only in the way the subject is presented - not the substance.

The rhetoric has been honed during the build up to every major Revolution in modern history and the establishment of lists of Rights have been drafted reflecting the recent experiences of the Authors, Friction between Government and the Citizenry, Proliferation of Biblical Truth and Strife.

Our unique US experience with Rights, predates our Revolution as several of the Founders studied the Concept, History and the academic works of people like John Locke, Edmund Burke (both contemporaries), Greek Philosophy etc. They drew up and embedded a type of headed outline in the Declaration of Independence (Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness) from which the Bill of Rights is naturally derived.

The tension between the Individual and the State has existed for all of human history. It stems from Man's sinful nature and the divergence in natural inclinations that we live with every day. In school it manifests in a migration toward the Arts and a desire to control versus building the Individual and his naturally occurring Gifts and Talents.

This Tension first manifests in innocuous settings but quickly seeks established venues where the desire can be nurtured and a herd affected. Our Founders had learned of this divergence, saw it in one historical example after another, lived with it and were determined to extract themselves from it; establish a new model with a new Guard and a new Hierarchy placing the Individual at the Apex.

The Constitution established three co-equal branches of Government with the expressed intent of self-scrutiny and ultimately, protection of the individual, his unhindered access to Life, Liberty and the pursuit of happiness and the limits of government in this regard.

The Declaration of Independence, the US Constitution and the extraneous, prolific writings of the Founders explain in detail their viewpoint, intent and desire to identify a list of Basic, naturally occurring Rights which allow the Individual to establish his life, maintain his liberty/freedom and to pursue ventures in life that are both fulfilling and allow him to sustain and enrich his life.

Rights therefore, are philosophically acknowledged to be as much a component of the Individual as his Eyes, Ears, Hands, Feet, Tongue, Heart, Brain and the very God-Breathed Life within us as opposed to Privileges which are granted by men, require prerequisites and are finite in duration.

Leftists have for years sought to diminish the immutability characteristic of a Right to justify the insinuation of government control of Rights starting with the Second Amendment. It is ironic that while they zealously pursue government control over the engagement of the Second Amendment, they simultaneously demand the establishment of a new Right - from new cloth, i.e., unregulated use of abortion.

It is ironic because their precedent setting attempts to negate a well-established acknowledgement of the Keeping and Bearing of Arms as a Natural, God-Given, Appendage to each individual and with it the very concept of the existence of the Uninfringeable Right makes their demands of no affect.

As to the Founder's Intent, Meaning and understanding of the Rights concept and how the second fits the other nine, you only must revisit the clause..."that among these are Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness." Life requires certain Basics; food, clothing, shelter, freedom of thought and expression; to choose supplication to, worship of and communing with God; selecting like-minded fellow citizens who swear to defend the Constitution and the Nation, the freedom to improve your lot in life and the ability to defend against all threats to those basics.

In order to decipher the clear intent of the Second Amendment, it requires just a very little history, etymology of a few words, the future expectations of the Founders and their dedication to arming the Citizenry with every tool required to establish, maintain and defend the society at large.

The Second Amendment: "A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”

Well Regulated - the phrase itself has never been argued. However, what is being regulated has. Punctuation is important and clearly it is the organization/Militia being described as "well regulated", i.e., trained, disciplined...even answerable.

Militia - in the absence of any other Martial terms in language, Militia could be used to describe any number of assembled individuals, gathered for defensive action. HOWEVER, given the context, the document and the historical period during which this is rendered, the Writers, Signers and their recent history, clearly, Militia refers to an extra-governmental assembly. Additionally, it defies logic to think the Founders would take the time to essentially plead with the world that they had the Right to establish an Army.

It also would be inconsistent for them to include collectivist language in a list of Individual Rights.

History, etymology and language clearly indicate that the American Militia is manned, armed, trained, fielded, led by civilians without government sanction and in spite of it.

Keeping - Individual Ownership

Bearing - Keeping on your person, i.e., carrying

Shall not be infringed - Cannot be cordoned, denied, categorized, interfered with, legislated.

Arms - one of a few words in use today as it was in antiquity. In fact, so much so that the Leftist argument against private ownership of the Leftist conjured classification of Assault Weapon is made anathema.

Arms, militarily, historically, traditionally, culturally, and in literature define a category of weaponry carried and employed by a single Warrior - without qualification. Interestingly, civilian weapons used for hunting, sport, personal protection or even Law Enforcement are not categorized as Arms.

Arms can include but are not limited to, daggers, swords, bow and arrow, match lock, flint lock, cap lock, breech loaded, bolt action, trapdoor, semi-auto, select-fire, internally fed or magazine fed rifles, handguns etc. that are or have been issued to Soldiers, Militiamen, Hoplites etc. Ironically, an argument could be made that only "Weapons of War" are covered by the Second Amendment.

What is missing from the text in the Second Amendment is the unregulated use of/discharging of those Arms. Legislation detailing when and where you can shoot is reasonable being as fellow citizens, in some instances could be endangered, i.e., on city streets, inside buildings not having a range, near schools, etc.

In summary, the Founder's personal studies coupled with their recent, shared history fueled their debate and the resultant Constitution with its delineated, protected and preeminent Bill of Rights all of which was designed to afford the Individual guidance for and protection from Government.

SF

jb