When the Framers drafted the USC, they adhered to the Statute of ’76.  That is, they designated just the powers that the new government should have to guarantee the greatest happiness of the people.  They finished their creation before it left Philadelphia.  They created seven Articles in four months.  As their draft gifted just a few powers to Congress, the drafters knew that they had good control of any future Congress.   But, from that point in time certain parties may have over-turned our basic American law and here's how it happened.

    Many Americans, as subjects under the British Magna Charta (Charter) knew that the Parliament had no restrictions on its power.  But, hapless British subjects had insisted that Parliament leave them alone; expressing their hoped for freedom in a Bill of Rights.  Parliament honored their objections by ignorng their so-called Bill of Rights by exercising any power they desired. 

     Here are excerpts from Wikipedia's history of this pathetic "rights" document.  "The Magna Charta was the first document forced onto a King of England by a group of his subjects, the [wealthy] feudal barons, in an attempt to limit his powers by law and protect their privileges. It was preceded and directly influenced from the Charter of Liberties in 1100, in which King Henry I had specified particular areas wherein his powers would be limited.

    Despite its [the MC]recognized importance, by the second half of the 19th century nearly all of the clauses had been repealed in their original form.  Lord Woolf described it as "first of a series of instruments that now are recognized as having a special constitutional status",^[4] the others being the Habeas Corpus Act (1679), the Petition of Right (1628), the Bill of Rights (1689), and the Act of Settlement (1701)."  

     Incidentally, the Declaration of Independence, unlike the diaphanous MC, can NOT be repealed, annulled or amended.  Hence, our stalwart defence of rights is the Great Statute of ’76.

    Some early Americans, trusting no legislature, demanded that the USC, as drafted, was unacceptable.  To “correct” the USC’s supposed defects, several state conventions insisted that the drafters amend their work with a list of rights that Congress should never violate.  Reluctantly, the drafters settled on ten amending articles, (the Bill of Rights) to satisfy these paranoid and Tory minded citizens.  The ninth state, New Hampshire, validated the USC in 1788, while the state legislatures affirmed the first ten Amendments in 1791. 

    To recapitulate, by 1791 Americans had gifted all the powers needed to control Congress as found in Article One.  But they had simultaneously given the new government a list of powers for which Congress was specifically denied access.   For the sake of this short discussion, let’s say we took 18 powers from our vast array of unalienable rights and gifted them to this creation, and we concurrently denied Congress’ access to 10 more of our unalienable rights.  That is a fair overview of the USC in 1791 for our analysis. 

     In the last clause of our granted powers we said that Congress is: “to make all laws which [they deem] shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the government of the US . . . .“  In other words we also gave Congress a power to decide which powers they find necessary and proper, and which powers they will ignore under this deeming grant of “judicial discretion”.  That is, if Congress construes a granted power unnecessary, it has the power to ignore it.

    George Bancroft, who wrote “A Plea For The Constitution” was 84 years old when the Supreme Court (SCOTUS), without any public argument on a case, both sides of which were presented by one man, issued its opinion in Julliard vs. Greenman, saying: “The power to make the notes of the government a legal tender in payment of private debts being one of the powers belonging to a sovereignty in other civilized nations, and not expressly withheld from Congress [in the Bill of Rights] by the USC, we are irresistibly impelled to the conclusion that the impressing upon the treasury notes of the United States the quality of being a legal tender in payment of private debts is an appropriate means, conducive and plainly adapted to the execution of the undoubted powers of Congress.”  (Emphasis added) Julliard vs. Greenman, 110 US 421 (1884). 

     It’s not necessary for our purposes to review the strong objections voiced by the Convention’s delegates to a paper money scheme.  Each of the colonies had already suffered extensive disasters by printing paper money as plentiful as leaves on the trees.  The first paper money disaster befalling the United States as a country occurred during the revolutionary war in which Congress attempted to fund the war effort with irredeemable Continental currency.  It eventually came to be equal to its real value, nothing.  A popular saw during that time was that, “something is not worth a Continental”. 

    For those unfamiliar with the legal tender issue, this absurd Julliard decision overturned the USC’s carefully phrased power to provide Americans with gold and silver coins for private debts.  It opened the door to the 1913 Federal Reserve System.  Yet, we the People had only gifted Congress a power to “coin money and regulate the value thereof . . . .”, not flood the land with “leaves” of paper money.   Unfortunately, it seems we had failed to make an amendment prohibiting Congress from impressing treasury notes as legal tender in payment of private debts.  Does that make sense?  Why do we need to protect our reserved powers from Congress with an explicit prohibition?   But the sorry Supreme Court took advantage of this supposed inadequacy in the Bill of Right and happily rubber-stamped Congress’ greatest usurpation by invoking the most absurd arguments.  This is why the B of Rs overturned the USC.

    From 1884, Congress, based on this unconstitutional Julliard holding, has merely examined the Bill of Rights when it wants to grant itself a new power.   If they find nothing negating their proposed new power grants Congress simply performs exactly like the despised British Parliament and grants itself their latest power lust.   We must marvel at the audacious move by Congress in conjunction with a complicit SCOTUS to overturn the USC simply because other purported “civilized nations” have a sovereign power so Congress must also have this power. 

    Julliard infers that the Bill of Rights should have itemized all the unalienable powers that Americans reserved to themselves.  Since this is impossible, any power outside the B of Rs is fair game says Julliard.  This arrogant usurpation must stun any American who thinks of the B of Rs as the great barrier protecting our freedom.  In fact, just the opposite is true. 

     It has been personally stated by SCOTUS’ justices that they assume that Congress has complied in every particular with the USC when they draft a law.  What purpose is the SCOTUS if they hold such a patently fraudulent position related to their oath? 

     If we assume that we had no B of Rs, any usurpation issue would easily find a solution.  The Court would only inquire as to whether We the People had granted that specific power in question.  If not granted, then the Court can easily rule against the usurpation, instead of affirming a usurpation like Julliard.   In our expectations and the USC, Congress cannot grant themselves powers belonging to Americans, because we never gave them that right. 

    When a listener asked Speaker Pelosi where the USC granted Congress a power to enact the “Obama-care” program, she replied, “Are you serious?”  “Are you serious?”  Pelosi knew that Julliard had ruled that Congress can grant itself a new power because (1 ) the so-called Bill of Rights doesn’t prevent Congress from giving themselves this power and, (2) this new power grant will be a power belonging to a sovereignty in other civilized nations, so it’s time we had socialized medicine.  Hence, Pelosi’s questioner expressed his ignorance of Julliard. 

     Do we not hear the clarion call that it’s about time for this country to give up their firearms?  This is the second prong on the Julliard decision.  Other “civilized nations” like Britain, Australia, Japan and etc. have guns in the hands of felons only, so it’s time we emulate them.  You can formulate the second prong of this argument to render firearms illegal via the Julliard decision.  This prong is especially easy to imagine as virtually no ordinary American understands the full meaning of their Second Amendment and could care less as to its opening absolute phrase. 

    Perhaps the time has come to dust off the old British Magna Charta and see if we can humbly beseech our Congressional masters to sign it.