Lincoln’s Curses

Lincoln’s Curses

Thomas Allen

 

1. Lincoln’s worst curse was converting the United States from a federation of independent sovereign republics to a consolidated national empire with the States reduced to administrative districts. As a corollary to this curse, the States lost their republican form of government; their governments remain republican in appearance but not in substance. (See “Returning Republican Governments to the States" by Thomas Allen.) He effectively repealed the Tenth Amendment.

2. Lincoln cursed America and most of the world with the notion that once a territory (State, province, country, or whatever) becomes part of another country, union, or federation, whether voluntarily or by conquest, it cannot leave without the consent of the country, union, or federation of which it is part. 

3. Lincoln cursed the United States with the “unquestioned mystique of might-makes-right and the coercive unitary nation-state.” This notion is the foundation of American hegemony and globalism.

4. Not only did Lincoln curse the country with an imperial president, which has grown stronger over the years, but he also cursed the country with a kritarchy. Following Lincoln, the Supreme Court began converting the country into a kritarchy. This goal was fully achieved with the Warren Court. Because of Lincoln, the United States have become a kritarchy with an imperial president and an impotent Congress. The Constitution means whatever the Supreme Court declares it to mean. (Thanks to Lincoln, kakistocrats, ideocrats, and kleptocrats have ruled the United States at various times.)

5. Lincoln suppressed the freedom of the press. Wilson and Franklin Roosevelt followed his example. Biden did likewise during the COVID-19 plandemic. Now, censorship primarily applies to the internet, as the oligarchs who control the federal government also control the press outside of the internet.

6. Lincoln cursed the United States with the income tax. He gave the country its first income tax. Later, the Supreme Court ruled that the income tax was unconstitutional. This ruling was followed by the Sixteenth Amendment, which made the income tax permanent. His income tax also cursed the country with the Internal Revenue Service.

7. Lincoln normalized and made the corrupt and cartelized business-government partnerships permanent. As a result, the military-industrial complex, the security-industrial complex, Big Pharma, Big Ag, Big Tech, Big Oil, Big Finance, Big Insurance, and other Big Businesses work closely with the federal government. In exchange for special governmentally granted privileges and benefits, they aid the federal government in expanding its power. (The oligarchs that control the federal government also control the collaborating businesses.)

8. Protective tariffs of Lincoln’s Republican Party were the primary cause of the secession of the States of the Lower South. Between Lincoln’s War and World War II, protective tariffs were the primary way that the federal government subsidized Big Businesses. Following World War II, Big Businesses began turning against tariffs. They discovered that they could profit more from producing goods in foreign countries and importing them into the United States.

9. Lincoln gave the United States their first legal tender fiat currency, the U.S. note or greenback. Although the country returned to the gold-coin standard in 1879, the fiat U.S. notes remained in circulation and were issued until their issuance was discontinued in 1971. (Unlike gold certificates, people were not required to turn U.S. notes in. They remained in circulation until they wore out or the banking system redrew them. One may occasionally find them in circulation. The author received one about ten years ago.) Between 1879 and 1933, when Franklin Roosevelt ended the gold standard, U.S. notes were redeemable at par in gold. 

10. With the National Banking Acts of 1863 and 1864, Lincoln nationalized the American banking system. In 1913, the Federal Reserve System replaced the national banking system.

11.  Other curses of Lincoln include establishing a large standing national army, legitimizing martial law even in areas where civil courts are open, ignoring habeas corpus and jailing dissidents and others without trial or due process, and establishing mostly permanent conscription (currently, conscription is out of favor; however, it can be resurrected at anytime, especially since the leaders of the United States want to subdue everyone in the world to their will).

Although Lincoln is credited with freeing the slaves, he freed no slaves. If he and the abolitionists wanted to free the slaves, they could have started by buying slaves with their own money and setting them free. Since they did not, they proved that they loved their money more than freeing slaves.

Reference

Rothbard, Murray N. “The Nationalities Question.” Mises Daily. April 18, 2022.

Copyright © 2026 by Thomas Coley Allen.

More political articles.

False States’ Rights

False States’ Rights

Thomas Allen

During the Clinton and Obama administrations, left-wingers wanted State officials to enforce federal anti-gun laws — even using force if necessary to coerce the States to enforce federal laws when bribery (federal grants) and extortion (withholding federal grants) failed. On the other hand, right-wingers strongly objected to States enforcing federal gun-control laws and claimed that States were not obliged to enforce federal laws. The Supreme Court agreed with the right-wingers.

Now, the left-wingers and right-wingers have switched positions. Under the Trump administration, right-wingers want State and, by extension, local officials to enforce federal immigration laws or at least be required to aid federal officials in enforcing federal immigration laws. They approve of the federal government using bribery or extortion to reward or punish States for enforcing and aiding in the enforcement of federal laws. Left-wingers object and assert that State and local officials do not have to enforce or aid in the enforcement of federal immigration laws.

Although both sides give lip service to States’ rights, neither believes in nor supports States’ rights. Both reject the notion that the United States is a federation of independent sovereign republican States. Both support the notion that the United States is a consolidated national empire with the States serving as administrative districts.

If they believed in and supported States’ rights, they would support States refusing to enforce federal laws, regardless of the law. Moreover, they would object to coercing States to enforce federal laws, even with bribery or extortion. (Extortion, i.e., withholding federal grants if a State fails to enforce a federal law, is a favorite weapon to compel a State to enforce a federal law.) 

Moreover, if they believed in States’ rights, they would support the right of “we the people” of each State to declare through their legislature or special convention, whether a federal law is constitutional. If a State (“we the people”) finds that a federal law is unconstitutional, it could and should nullify that law and make it unenforceable in that State and even jail federal agents who tried to enforce the nullified law. (Governors and city and county officials do not have the right to nullify federal laws; however, they may refuse to enforce or aid in the enforcement of federal laws unless a State law requires them to enforce or aid in the enforcement of federal laws.)

People who oppose a State’s right to nullify a federal law that they support oppose States having a republican form of government as guaranteed under the Constitution.[1] (see “Returning Republican Governments to the States” by Thomas Allen). Moreover, they oppose sovereignty residing in “we the people” of each State. Consequently, they support sovereignty residing in the oligarchs who control the federal government.

Endnote

1.  As explained in “Returning Republican Governments to the States,” for a State to have a republican form of government, it has to have the right to decide for itself whether a federal law is constitutional or unconstitutional. If it finds that a federal law is unconstitutional, it has not only the right but also the duty to nullify that law and make it unenforceable in that State.

Copyright © 2026 by Thomas Coley Allen.

More political articles.

Before and After

Before and After

Thomas Allen

Lincoln’s War and the Fourteenth Amendment made fundamental changes to the United States and the Constitution of 1788. Although they did not alter the words of the Constitution that existed in 1860, the Constitution that was ratified in 1788, they changed their meanings. Moreover, the Fourteenth Amendment destroyed the fundamental principles on which the Constitution was based. Furthermore, it was illegally and unlawfully ratified (see “Addendum to ‘For Whom Is the Constitution Written?’” by Thomas Allen).

Lincoln’s War and the Fourteenth Amendment slew the Tenth Amendment. Nevertheless, the Supreme Court will occasionally resurrect it to give “we the people” of the States the illusion that they still have rights.

Before Lincoln’s War and the Fourteenth Amendment, the States were independent, sovereign republics.[1] After Lincoln’s War and the Fourteenth Amendment, the States lost their independence, sovereignty, and republican form of government and became little more than administrative districts in a consolidated national empire. (For the difference between Lincoln’s Constitution and the Constitution of 1788, see “What Is Your View of the US Constitution?” by Thomas Allen.)

Before 1860, most people who preferred a national empire to a federation of republics considered the United States as a federation of States and the federal government as having limited powers.

Lincoln’s War and the Fourteenth Amendment demolished the Jeffersonian tradition of States’ rights by which the people of the States were the masters rather than the servants of the federal government. Afterwards, the federal government became the master of all, and the people, other than the oligarchs, were reduced to servants, even slaves, of the ruling elite.

Before Lincoln’s War and the Fourteenth Amendment, most people viewed the Constitution as restraining the federal government and not the people. Even people who wanted little or no restraint saw the Constitution limiting their lust for power, which is why they had Lincoln and the Republicans change it. Afterwards, it no longer restrained the federal government; they gave it almost unlimited powers. 

Before Lincoln’s War and the Fourteenth Amendment, people became citizens of the United States by being citizens of a State. Afterwards, people were citizens of a State by being citizens of the United States. (Moreover, the United States ceased to be referred to in the plural [are] and became referred to in the singular [is].) Thus, citizenship was changed. Additionally, before, only Whites were citizens. Although a State could grant Indians and Blacks certain privileges of citizenship, they were not and could not be citizens. They were aliens.

Before Lincoln’s War and the Fourteenth Amendment, sovereignty resided in “we the people” of each State. Afterwards, sovereignty resided in the oligarchs who controlled the federal government. Thus, the location of sovereignty was changed.

Before Lincoln’s War and the Fourteenth Amendment, the country was monoracial. The founding fathers said so (for proof, see “The Constitution of 1788 Was Only for White People” by Thomas Allen; also see “For Whom Is the Constitution Written?” and “Addendum to ‘For Whom Is the Constitution Written?’” by Thomas Allen). Afterwards, it was multiracial.

As a result of the Fourteenth Amendment, the descendants of the people who built this country, i.e., Whites, Aryans, are being genocided. In 1950, 89 percent of the population was White; by 2020, only 61 percent were White.

Between Monroe and Lincoln, many of the presidents and other political leaders favored a consociated national empire and, with one exception, would not have objected to what Lincoln’s War and the Fourteenth Amendment did to the country. That exception was the Fourteenth Amendment turning the United States into a multiracial country. After Lincoln’s War and the Fourteenth Amendment, all presidents, except for Cleveland, supported a consolidated national empire, where the States were no longer independent republics but were districts of the empire. Moreover, before World War II, nearly all would have objected to the Fourteenth Amendment turning the United States into a multiracial country.

Section 2 of the Fourteenth Amendment

Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice-President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State.

Thus, if right to vote for judicial officers of a State is denied to any eligible voter (male citizens 21 years old and older at that time), the number of Representatives in the House of Representatives shall be reduced in the proportion to the number of male citizens denied the vote to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State. Only in 21 States do the voters elect all judges. In the other States, the Supreme Court and most appellate court judges are appointed or selected by the legislature. Therefore, only the 21 States where all judges are elected should have representation in the House of Representatives.

Endnote

1. Lincoln’s War and the Fourteenth Amendment voided the first part of Article IV, Section 2, which guarantees States a republican form of government. Only a sovereign can have a republican form of government; only a sovereign can be a republic. Therefore, a State must be sovereign to have a republican government. As a sovereign, a State, i.e., “we the people” of that State, has the right to decide if an act of the federal government is Constitutional. If a State finds that an act of the federal government is unconstitutional, it may nullify that act and prevent its enforcement in that State. Moreover, it may withdraw from the compact, i.e., secede. However, Lincoln’s War and the Fourteenth Amendment stripped the States of their sovereignty, and, consequently, they denied the States the right to have a republican form of government. (See “Returning Republican Governments to the States” by Thomas Allen.)

Copyright © 2026 by Thomas Coley Allen.

More political articles.

Blue Cities’ Response to Deporting Illegal Immigrants

Blue Cities’ Response to Deporting Illegal Immigrants

Thomas Allen

Several blue cities, cities controlled by Democrats, have become notorious for trying to prevent the apprehension and deportation of illegal immigrants. Instead of using the constitutional method to stop the enforcement of immigration laws, they prefer an unconstitutional approach. The political leaders of these cities support violent protests against federal agents attempting to apprehend illegal immigrants.

The constitutional approach is to have the State, i.e., the people of that State, through their legislature or special convention, find the federal immigration law unconstitutional and nullify or veto it in that State. Thus, the immigration law would no longer be valid in that State because it would not exist in that State. Any federal agent who tried to enforce the federal immigration law would violate the Constitution and could be subject to penalties. (See “Nullification and Interposition” by Thomas Allen.)

At least that is the way it would work under the Constitution that the Founding Fathers gave us. Under that Constitution, the people of each State were sovereign. As sovereigns, they decided whether the acts of their agent, the federal government, were contrary to the agreement (the Constitution) that they had entered into with the other sovereigns, i.e., the people of the other States.

However, Lincoln and the Republicans usurped the sovereignty of the people of the States and gave it to the oligarchs who control the federal government.

Unfortunately, today, the country operates under the constitution that Lincoln as furthered developed by Presidents Wilson and Franklin Roosevelt and carried to fruition by the Warren Court gave it. Under the Lincoln constitution, States have only those rights that the federal government grants them. (For the difference between the Constitution of the Founding Fathers and Lincoln’s constitution, see “What Is Your View of the US Constitution?” by Thomas Allen.)

President Trump, most Republicans, many conservatives, and all Democrats, when they control the federal government, have little use for the Constitution of the Founding Fathers. They prefer the Lincoln constitution because it gives them more power and will ignore any nullification. Consequently, since the peaceful method of nullification is not available, blue cities are reduced to violence to try to stop the enforcement of what they perceive as unconstitutional laws. 

Nevertheless, the US Supreme Court allows city, county, and State officials to refuse to aid the federal government in the enforcement of federal laws. (A State may require local officials to cooperate with the federal government in enforcing federal laws.) However, they cannot actively interfere with the federal government enforcing federal laws.

(Personally, I believe that the federal government has the constitutional authority to apprehend and deport people who have entered the country illegally. However, that is a decision that the people of each State have the right to make for themselves.)

Copyright © 2026 by Thomas Coley Allen.

More political articles.

Nationalists and Federalists

Nationalists and Federalists

Thomas Allen

Since the ratification of the Constitution of 1788, nationalists and federalists have been struggling to control the government of the United States. With the possible exception of the Cleveland administration, the nationalists have controlled the US government since the election of Lincoln. (Federalists should not be confused with the early Federalist Party of Washington and Adams, which was primarily a nationalist party. As contradictory as it may sound, the Antifederalists of that era were the real federalists.) The following is a comparison of nationalists and federalists.

1– Nationalists support a living constitution where the US Supreme Court, the President, and Congress continuously change the interpretation of the Constitution to meet current needs, i.e., to satiate their lust for power. Among their favorite clauses are the Interstate Commerce Clause, the General Welfare Clause (which means that anything Congress deems to be for the general welfare), and the Necessary and Proper Clause. They give these and other clauses extremely elastic interpretations.

On the other hand, federalists support a strict, limited interpretation of the Constitution. They advocate interpreting the Constitution to mean what the proponents of the ratification of the Constitution explained it to mean and its intent. Records of their remarks are available in the debates of the ratification conventions, the Federalist Papers, and other writings that promoted the Constitution.

2– While nationalists advocate the consolidation of political power where the national government (a.k.a. the central government, the federal government, the US government, and the general government) has unlimited power, federalists advocate the dispersal of political power where the federal government has limited, enumerated power.

3– According to nationalists, the Supreme Court is the final arbitrator of the constitutionality of federal acts (and even most State acts). Thus, the national government is the sole arbitrator of its political power.

Federalists assert that “we the people” of each State, either through their legislatures or special conventions, are the ultimate and final arbitrators of the constitutionality of a federal act. If a State finds that a federal act is unconstitutional, it is void in that State, but it may continue to be applied in the other States.

4– Nationalists maintain that all federal acts are constitutional until the Supreme Court declares them unconstitutional, which it rarely does. (Being a branch of the national government, the Supreme Court cannot be an unbiased arbitrator. Most of the time, it decides in favor of the national government and against the States.) 

However, federalists maintain that only federal acts pursuant to the Constitution are constitutional. Any federal act that does not implement or apply one of the powers expressly delegated to the federal government in the Constitution has not been made pursuant to the Constitution. Therefore, it is unconstitutional, i.e., it is not a law and consequently void.

5– Nationalists loathe States’ rights. They consider States to be merely administrative districts of the national government.  

Quite the opposite, federalists are ardent proponents of States’ rights. States, i.e., “we the people” of each State, are the heart and soul of the Constitution and the federal government that they created. Without the States, the Constitution and federal government would not exist. Furthermore, each State acting independently is the final judge of the constitutionality of all federal acts. Consequently, if a State finds a federal act unconstitutional, it is duty-bound to nullify that act within its jurisdiction.

6– Nationalists place the power of the national government above all. Therefore, they view secession as treason and a sacrilege.

Federalists place the welfare of their community, people, and land above the federal government. Thus, they view secession as a means of preservation.

7– Nationalists are inclined toward foreign intervention and imperialism and are, therefore, bellicostic. They seek hegemony.

Contrastingly, federalists desire not to meddle in the internal affairs of other countries and seek peace and trade with all. Consequently, they prefer peace to war.

8– Nationalists favor government-business partnerships, mercantilism, protectionism, centralized banking, easy credit (inflation), and government indebtedness. Thus, they favor big business, big labor, and the concentration of economic power. Prosperity is created through mercantilism, i.e., corporate welfare, protectionism, and central banking. 

On the other hand, federalists favor free trade, free markets, free enterprise, decentralized banking, the separation of government and banking, the stable value of money, and minimum or no government debt. Thus, they favor the dispersal of economic power. Free markets create prosperity.

9– Nationals accept the welfare state, for it increases the national government’s control over the people and, consequently, its power.

Federalists prefer private and church charities to governmental welfare. However, if a government is to be involved in welfare, it should be the local government.

10– Nationalists rely on the national government to promote and preserve the virtues of the people. Making people righteous is a primary function of the national government. (Today, perversion is often considered righteousness.)

Federalists rely on the independence of citizens to promote and preserve the virtues of the people. Making people righteous is primarily the work of churches (true churches and not today’s woke churches).

11– Nationalists construe the Constitution as a teleological document (establishing a society based on abstract principles of natural rights, equality, democracy, etc.)

Federalists construe it as a nomocratic document (bringing government under the rule of law).

12– Nationalists lean toward inclusion and, therefore, amalgamation.

Yet, federalists lean toward diversity and, therefore, separation. Moreover, 

federalists are more tolerant than are nationalists.

While nationalists promote the concentration of political, economic, and social power, federalists promote their dispersal.

Regrettably, most State governmental officials have sold their souls to the nationalists. Since most State officials prefer lucre to liberty, the nationalists have bought them with federal grant money. (Nowhere does the Constitution delegate the federal government the authority to issue grants — much less to use federal funds for bribery.)

In summary, while nationalists are centralists, federalists are decentralists (see “Centralism Verses Decentralism” by Thomas Allen.) Furthermore, while nationalists are statists, federalists are libertists (“Statists Versus Libertists” by Thomas Allen). Consequently, nationalists prefer the constitution that Lincoln and the Republicans, as further developed by Presidents Wilson and Franklin Roosevelt and carried to fruition by the Warren Court, gave the United States, while the federalists prefer the Constitution of the Founding Fathers (see “What Is Your View of the US Constitution?” by Thomas Allen).

Federalism is achieved when more people know the names of their governors and State legislators than know the names of the President and their members of Congress.

Afterthought. Generally, nationalists divide into two major factions. One follows the attributes in the above list. The other follows the political and social attributes, although they disagree about the virtues that the national government should impose and the extent of the welfare state. However, the second faction agrees more with the federalists on economic matters. Further, some nationalists are less favorable to foreign interventionism than others.

Unfortunately, not all federalists are consistent. Many act like nationalists on economic matters. Some federalists are inclined toward the warfare state (foreign interventionism) and welfare states and support such endeavors, especially when their State receives money from the federal government for military bases and various social and welfare programs.

Copyright © 2025 by Thomas Coley Allen.

More political articles.

Nullification and Interposition – Part 2

Nullification and Interposition – Part 2

Thomas Allen

The federal government is obliged to cease enforcing a nullified act in a State that has nullified it. If the federal government attempts to enforce a nullified law, such action would be like humans trying to oust their Creator, God — the created agent trying to overthrow the creator sovereign “we the people” of the nullifying State. Although the former is impossible, Lincoln accomplished the latter.

There are only three constitutional ways to overturn the nullification of a federal act. One way is to persuade the nullifying States that it is wrong, which results in the State rescinding its nullification. Second, the federal government repeals or rescinds the nullified act. The third is that the Constitution is amended to clarify that the federal government has the power that has been nullified or that the nullified power is a reserved power that the federal government should exercise.

Although Congress can call forth the militia “to execute the laws and suppress insurrection,” this power does not apply to nullification because the law does not exist in the nullifying State. Since the act of nullification has declared the law null and void, it does not exist in the nullifying State.

One argument against nullification is that the Supreme Court is the final arbitrator of the constitutionality of all federal and State acts. If the US Supreme Court is the final arbitrator, it means two things. First, the creature (the federal government) is superior to the creator (the States). Such usurpation is like man (the creature) usurping the power and authority of the creator (God). Misery and despotism are the results. Second, of the three branches of government, the Supreme Court is the superior branch. However, the Constitution makes Congress the superior branch and the federal courts the weakest. Before it emasculated itself, Congress could restrict the Supreme Court’s jurisdiction to the few items named in Article III and could deny it jurisdiction over most acts of the States. Further, Congress can strip the Supreme Court of its appellate authority. Moreover, since Congress created all inferior courts, it can abolish them. Also, Congress can and has restricted the jurisdiction of inferior courts, which includes the authority to decide the constitutionality of federal and State acts. Further, the President can follow Lincoln’s precedent and ignore the rulings of any federal court, including the Supreme Court.

Another argument that opponents of nullification use is the Supremacy Clause of the US Constitution, Article VI, Clause 2:

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

Thus, they assert that all federal laws are the supreme law and prevail over the States, and a State cannot judge the constitutionality of a federal law. Deciding the constitutionality of a federal law is the job of federal courts.

Conversely, most founding fathers who were involved with the development and ratification of the Constitution of 1787 (most notably, Madison and Jefferson) assert that only federal laws made pursuant to the Constitution are supreme. That is, only those federal laws necessary to execute specifically delegated powers are constitutional. Any federal law that goes beyond the specifically delegated power is unconstitutional; it is not a law and, therefore, is void and of no force or effect. A State’s nullification makes a finding that a particular federal law is not made pursuant to the Constitution and is, therefore, not a law.

Who ultimately decides if a federal law is constitutional? It cannot be the Supreme Court because that would make the federal government, the creature or agent, the judge of its limits. The only logical arbitrator of the constitutionality of a federal law is “we the people,” that is, “we the people” of each State acting independently either through their legislature or a special convention. Since “we the people” of each State independently ratified the Constitution of 1787 and, consequently, formed the union created under that Constitution and its government, they should be the ultimate and final judge of the constitutionality of all federal acts.

Therefore, federal laws are supreme only if they are constitutional. An unconstitutional federal law or other federal act is null and void. Being the principals of the contract, the US Constitution, that created the federal government and delegated to it certain powers, each State, acting individually, is the final judge about whether a federal action is constitutional.

Another major argument against nullification is that the majority has the right to govern, i.e., the will of the majority must prevail — the majority of the whole or an absolute majority. As a practical matter, the will of the whole community is the will of the stronger interest. (Most people who hold this view demur when the majority turns against their favorite project.) 

There are two ways to estimate the majority. The first is a majority of the whole community in the aggregate. The second is a majority of political interests (different classes, communities, etc.) formed into one general confederated community. In the second case, the majority is a majority of the various classes or communities, with the assent of each taken separately. The concurrence of all constitutes the majority — concurrent majority. People who object to nullification because it thwarts the majority are referring to the first type of majority.

Since the Constitution came into being through a concurrent majority, an absolute majority conflicts with the Constitution. (The concurring accent of all the States formed and ratified the Constitution and not a majority of the whole in the aggregate.)

People who object to nullification assert, in effect, that the federal government has the sole right to decide the extent of its own powers and, by that, place the reserved powers of the States at its whim and mercy — thus, destroying the equilibrium of the system.

Nullification is an important but rarely used means to keep the federal government within its constitutional bounds. Without nullification, the federal government, the agent of the States that created it, will assume powers never delegated to it and expand delegated powers beyond what was intended. History proves this point. Since nullification essentially died in 1865, the federal government has exploded far beyond its constitutional bounds, and the States have shrunk to near insignificance. 

Do the States have the right to interpose and nullify federal laws? Under the Constitution that the Founding Fathers gave to the union, the answer is “yes.” According to the Founding Fathers’ Constitution, the States are independent sovereign republics, i.e., independent sovereign nations. Just as nations that enter into a treaty or compact can each independently judge adherence to that treaty or compact, so can the States independently judge adherence to the Constitution. Moreover, the States not only have the right, but they also have the duty to decide independently if the Constitution (a treaty and compact between the States) is being violated.

Under the constitution that Lincoln gave to the union, the answer is “no.” According to Lincoln’s constitution, the States are merely administrative provinces. They can only do what the federal government allows them to do. The rights of the States are mere concessions that can be revoked any time. “Might makes right” is the underlying principle of the Lincoln constitution. (For the difference between the Constitutions of the Founding Fathers and Lincoln, see “What Is Your View of the US Constitution?” by Thomas Allen) 

Even under the Constitution of the Founding Fathers, the people who controlled the federal government avariciously lusted after power and, therefore, preferred “might” to “right” and objected to a State nullifying even the most unconstitutional acts of the federal government.

Ending grants to State and local governments would be one of the best things to occur in this country. It would give the States the courage to nullify unconstitutional federal acts and to interpose to prevent their enforcement. If the cowardly States cared about protecting themselves and their citizens, they would nullify thousands of federal acts.

Afterthought. A great irony of today is that the woke politicians and other wokesters supporting nullifying federal acts of deporting illegal aliens are using, most likely unknowingly, the political philosophies of Jefferson and Calhoun. What makes their support of nullification so ironic is that they have declared Jefferson and especially Calhoun persona non grata, who should be erased from history.

For more on nullification, see the following works of John C. Calhoun:

The Disquisition on Government,

Fort Hill Address,

Important Correspondence on the Subject of State Introposition [sic], Between His Excellency Gov. Hamilton and Hon. John C. Calhoun, and 

“Against the Force Bill”

Also, see these articles:

The Kentucky Resolves of 1798

The Kentucky Resolves of 1799

Virginia General Assembly Report of 1800

Also, see these articles by Thomas Allen:

 “Calhoun and Concurrent Majority,”

“States’ Rights,”

“States’ Right and Society,”

“Jefferson and States’ Rights,”

“Calhoun and States’ Rights,” and

“More Thoughts Related to the US Constitution.”

Copyright © 2025 by Thomas Coley Allen.

More political articles.

Part 1.

Founding Documents of Today’s United States

Founding Documents of Today’s United States

Thomas Allen

Most Blacks, progressives, liberals, neoconservatives, establishment conservatives, libertarians, Negrophiles, Albusphobes, Dixiephobes, and Confederaphobes (hereafter referred to as “these people”) consider the Declaration of Independence (especially the phrase “all men are created equal”), the Emancipation Proclamation, the Gettysburg Address, the US Supreme Court’s Brown v. Education (1954) decision, and Martin Luther King’s speech “I Have a Dream” (especially the sentence “I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character.”) to be the founding documents of today’s United States. For them, the Constitution should be interpreted considering these five documents. Consequently, they interpret the Constitution to increase the power of the federal government and decrease the power of the States and to force integration and diversity. 

1. Declaration of Independence. For “these people,” the Declaration of Independence contains only one important phrase: “all men are created equal.” They ignore the two most important provisions.

First, “That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government. . . .” This clause acknowledges the right of the people to abolish their government and replace it with another. However, Lincoln and the Republicans denied Southerners this right.

Second, “That these United Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States. . . .” This clause shows that each colony declared itself to be a free and independent sovereign State. Each colony became a free and independent nation. (Random House Kernerman Webster's College Dictionary defines “state” as “a politically unified people occupying a definite territory; nation.” Thus, each colony was a free and independent sovereign nation.) These sovereign nations formed the United States and established two governments: one under the Articles of Confederation and another under the Constitution for the United States. However, “these people” have to ignore this clause because it conflicts with the Gettysburg Address.

When the States created a union under these two constitutions, they did so without surrendering any of their sovereignty. Unlike today, where the United States is a consolidated empire with an all-powerful central government and the States are merely subjugated provinces, the United States were originally established as a federation of sovereign republican States and remained so until Lincoln’s War.

Although “these people” preach equality, they do not practice it. They believe that some people are more equal than others. Blacks are more equal than Whites. That is, Blacks are the superior race, and Whites are the inferior race while other nonwhites are in between. Above all of them are the oligarchs.

2. Emancipation Proclamation. Most of “these people” believe that Lincoln’s Emancipation Proclamation freed the slaves. It did not. The Emancipation Proclamation was a war propaganda document that freed no slaves. The Thirteenth Amendment freed the slaves. Lincoln even admitted that his proclamation had no legal justification or force, which is why he pushed a constitutional amendment to abolish slavery. 

With the issuance of the Emancipation Proclamation, the genocide of Southerners began. Soon after its issuance, Lincoln’s army began warring against and deliberately killing children, women, and other civilians. This genocide continues to this day.

3. Gettysburg Address. Lincoln’s Gettysburg Address did not change the structure of the United States from a federation of sovereign republican States to a consolidated empire. The illegally and unlawfully ratified Fourteenth Amendment did that. (Another important component in changing the United States to a consolidated empire was Lincoln and the Republicans putting in place during Lincoln’s War the unconstitutional American System: protective tariffs, subsidies to businesses, central banking, and the concentration of political power in the federal government.) However, the Gettysburg Address declared the objective and underlying principle of Lincoln and the Republicans. To justify this new governmental structure, Lincoln had to distort (lie about) the historical and political foundations of the United States.

Before Lincoln’s War, the United States were a federation of sovereign republican States. After Lincoln’s War, the United States became a consolidated empire with the Southern States becoming exploited colonies. 

H. L. Mencken, who may be accused of being an iconoclast but who can hardly be accused of being a fire-eating unreconstructed rebel, succinctly summed up Lincoln’s War when commenting on the Battle of Gettysburg and the Gettysburg Address:

Think of the argument in it [the Gettysburg Address]. Put it into the cold words of every day. The doctrine is simply this: that the Union soldiers who died at Gettysburg sacrificed their lives to the cause of self-determination — ‘that government of the people, by the people, for the people,’ should not perish from the earth. It is difficult to imagine anything more untrue. The Union soldiers in that battle fought against self-determination; it was the Confederates who fought for the right of their people to govern themselves. What was the practical effect of the battle of Gettysburg? What else than the destruction of the old sovereignty of the States, i.e., of the people of the States: The Confederates went into battle free; they came out with their freedom subject to the supervision and veto of the rest of the country — and for nearly twenty years that veto was so effective that they enjoyed scarcely more liberty, in the political sense, than so many convicts in the penitentiary.

4. US Supreme Court’s Brown V. Education. In Brown v. Education, the Supreme Court established two new basic principles. First, “feelings of racial inferiority have a constitutional status.”[1] Second, “racial integration is the remedy for these ‘feelings of inferiority.’”[2] Therefore, “private discrimination is a constitutional evil and racial diversity is a constitutional good.”[3] Thus, racial integration is the remedy for the feeling of inferiority. However, an exception exists and that is Whites feeling inferior, and today many Whites feel inferior. (If these Whites did not feel inferior, they would not hate themselves and their race and promote the genocide of the White race.) Racial integration is the primary cause of White feeling inferior.

This Supreme Court ruling gives the federal government almost absolute control over everything anyone does. Consequently, it destroys all freedoms and liberties.

The Supreme Court’s ruling is based on a false premise. While the ruling justifies integration, it also justifies diversity. Yet, racial integration leads to amalgamation and homogenization, which destroys diversity.

5. Martin Luther King’s Speech “I Have a Dream.” Although King advocated judging people by the content of their character instead of their race, he wanted Blacks to be judged by their race and given special benefits and privileges. At least subconsciously, he knew that judging Blacks by their character placed them at a disadvantage. Judging Blacks by their character is a losing situation for Blacks. When compared with Whites and most other races, Blacks overall are more lethargic, lazy, impulsive, violent, criminally inclined, vociferous, rowdy, sexually immoral, irresponsible, superficial, childlike, and demanding.

Moreover, if Blacks were judged by merit, most would lag behind most Whites because they innately have lower intelligence and intellectual capabilities. Only in most sports and menial labor do they have an advantage over Whites. Because Blacks lag behind Whites in the most prestigious professions, quotas become necessary to fill these professions with Blacks who are less qualified than Whites. 

Constitution. Through these five documents, “these people” interpret the Constitution. Consequently, to implement these five founding documents, the federal government may undertake any action necessary to prevent discrimination against Blacks and other nonwhites except East Asians and to force discrimination against Whites. Moreover, they interpret the Constitution such that political power is concentrated in the federal government and the States are reduced to subjugated provinces. 

Furthermore, using these five documents, they interpret the Constitution to give advantages, benefits, and privileges to Blacks and other nonwhites at the expense of Whites. Thus, the Constitution requires discrimination against Whites although “these people” assert that the Constitution forbids racial discrimination.

Consequently, the implementation of these founding documents abolishes the Constitution that the founding fathers gave the country — in principle if not in words, i.e., the words of the Constitution remained the same but their meaning changed. Thus, the implementation of these five documents suppresses liberties and freedoms, especially the freedom of speech, religion, and association.

Summary. The following summarizes the five founding documents of today’s United States:

1. The Declaration of Independence declares that all men are equal — except Southerners, Afrikaners, Palestinians, and a few other despicable ethnicities who are only worthy of genocide.

2. The Emancipation Proclamation freed the Black slaves (so “these people” claim), but it has resulted in Whites being enslaved to support Blacks and other nonwhites with welfare and job preferences.

3. The Gettysburg Address outlines the change in the political structure of the United States from a federation of sovereign States (we the peoples) to a consolidated empire under an all-powerful central government that the oligarchs control for their benefit.

4. The US Supreme Court Ruling on Brown v. Education has led to forcing integration and diversity (although the two conflict) and giving Blacks benefits and privileges at the expense of Whites. 

5. The “I Have a Dream” speech provides the camouflage for discriminating against Whites and making Blacks the superior race.

Endnotes

1.  Jesse Merriam, How We Got Our Antiracist Constitution (Claremont Institute), p. 5.

2. Ibid.

3. Ibid.

Copyright © 2024 by Thomas Coley Allen.

More political articles.

Calhoun and States’ Rights

Calhoun and States’ Rights

Thomas Allen

In Chaining Down Leviathan: The American Dream of Self-Government 1776-1865 (McClellanville, South Carolina: Abbeville Institute Press, 2021), Luigi Marco Bassani discusses John C. Calhoun’s concept of States’ rights. The following summarizes that discussion.

Calhoun used “State” to designate the people of a State and not its government, which the people (body politic of that State) created. Each State was a self-governing political community, and the people of each State were the sovereign authority — not their government. Concurrent majority and the concept that the Constitution was an agreement between the States were the core features of Calhoun’s political thoughts. Thus, he objected to the notion that a simple numerical majority should decide all political issues.

According to Calhoun, sovereignty belonged either to the States or to the Union. Because sovereignty was indivisible, it could not belong to both. He argued that sovereignty resided in the people of the individual States and not in the people of the Union as a whole.

Calhoun asserted that the Supremacy Clause invested no power in the federal government. It clearly did not establish the supremacy of the federal government. Further, he maintained that the authority of the federal government set up by the Constitution was limited to the delegated powers and that laws enacted pursuant to these delegated powers were supreme. However, the Supremacy Clause did not extend beyond these delegated powers, i.e., the supremacy of the federal government is not absolute. The States and the people of the States retained all authority not expressly delegated to the federal government.

Conflict, according to Calhoun, did not originate in society. Governmental action caused conflict by creating two opposite social classes: taxpayers and tax consumers. Moreover, suffrage led to conflict between the different interests in a community because each interest strove to obtain the power to protect itself from the others and to advance its own agenda. However, conflicting interests did not lead to a government. Politics was what caused the conflict between various interests.

Calhoun thought equalizing the fiscal appropriations of a government was impossible. Taxation and public expenditures caused two conflicting interests. While those who controlled the government benefitted from the taxes, those who did not control the government paid more in taxes than they received back in disbursements. Consequently, political power, government, is the cause of conflict in society.

For many years, Calhoun sought in the Constitution the defense against the federal government’s intrusions. He based his arguments on the individual States being contracting parties to and, therefore, the real principals of the Constitution.

The Constitution centered around the States. This centralness appeared in how Representatives and Senators were chosen. The people of the several States chose members of the House of Representatives. The legislatures of the States elected senators. (Now, the people of each State elect that State’s Senators via the seventeenth amendment.) Representatives and Senators must be inhabitants of the State from which they are elected. Moreover, Representatives were never considered a delegate of a part of the American people.

Calhoun noted that States were the source of the federal government’s political powers. Political power flowed from the States to the federal government and never vice-versa. The Constitution gave certain powers to the federal government and prohibited others. However, it never gave any powers to the States; it only prohibited certain powers. All powers that the States did not expressly delegate to the federal government, they reserved for themselves, i.e., the States retained all powers not expressly delegated. Thus, the Constitution established a federal government with highly limited powers.

For Calhoun, the States were the sole actors in the Union. Unlike Jefferson, who favored a federal-type relationship between centers of government within a State, Calhoun did not. He favored a simple administrative relationship between the State government and local authorities. However, he believed that the United States were an authentic federation.

Calhoun objected to governmental interference in the economic pursuits of individuals, who understood their own interests better than any government. Accordingly, he supported free trade and, therefore, low tariffs. Fervently, he objected to protective tariffs and the South paying disproportionately a much larger share of federal revenue than the North paid. Consequently, the North was exploiting southern producers and consumers for the benefit of the northern manufacturing industry. This redistribution of wealth was not limited to the South. It also was used against northern workers and would result in a class struggle — all courtesy of the federal government.

Furthermore, Calhoun recognized that the centralization and concentration of power in the federal government were being used for northern interest and were causing corruption that threatened the freedom of the country. Interposition by the States was the solution to this centralization of power. However, States could not interpose their authority to interfere with the powers that the Constitution expressly delegated to the federal government. Likewise, the federal government could not interfere with the powers that the States had retained for themselves.

Moreover, the Constitution was based on distinguishing between government and sovereignty. Governmental powers resided in the institutions either of the States or the federal government. Sovereignty resided in the people of each State respectively. Three-fourths of the States were the final constitutional authority.

Because the Constitution created the departments of the federal government, sovereignty did not and could not reside in any department of the federal government. Their sole purpose was to execute the provisions of the Constitution. Any act of the federal government that altered the nature of the Constitution or changed any condition of the parties to it was usurpation.

Calhoun believed that the Supreme Court might judge acts of a State whether they violated the constitutional prerogatives of the federal government. However, the Supreme Court should not and could not legitimately judge an act of the federal government whether it violated the constitutional prerogatives of a State. For the Supreme Court to do so placed it above the States that created the Constitution and vested in it the power to alter the powers of the federal government and the States. 

Calhoun recognized that the text of the Constitution could not impose practical restraints on the federal government. Reason and justice could never restrain power: Only power could restrain power. Only the States possessed sufficient power to restrain the federal government. Therefore, each State should have and did have the right to judge for itself if the federal government had violated any of its rights.

Calhoun maintained that the Constitution implicitly allowed secession because it was a contract between sovereign parties. The ratification process proved this conclusion. As distinct political entities independent from each other, the States ratified the Constitution. Moreover, no State was part of the Union under the Constitution until it ratified the Constitution. Furthermore, the Union was a union of sovereign States without a direct link between the federal government and citizens.

Secession had nothing to do with the federal government. It was an act of a State withdrawing from a partnership with the other States. Although secession was extreme, it was not foreign to the constitutional system. However, according to Calhoun, secession did not derive from the contractual nature of the Constitution; it derived from its political nature.

Calhoun rejected the notion of the will of the majority being the will of the people. For him, the “will of the majority” meant a particular interest or coalition of interests that prevailed over others. Like most people of his era, he believed that a government based on a numerical majority was tyrannical by nature. To overcome the tyranny of an absolute numerical majority, he advocated a concurrent majority on all important issues.

For Calhoun, the term “United States” was geographical and not political. However, he conceived of the United States as more than a league of States. Yet, the States should never become a centralized democracy where an absolute majority ruled. Such a rule would result in abandoning constitutional guarantees. Consequently, States should and did have the right to judge as the last resort the limits that the Constitution placed on the federal government. This right should be defended at all costs. Otherwise, the United States would become a dictatorship of the executive branch.

Both Jefferson and Calhoun considered a State to be the people of the State and not the governmental power. However, Jefferson believed that the United States were for a special purpose only while Calhoun believed them to be an assemblage of nations.

For Calhoun, nullification was peaceful in nature and did not damage the prerogatives of the federal government. When a conflict between a State and the other States could not be resolved, the State had to choose either secession or submission. As a political sovereign and partner with the other States in establishing the Union, each State acting individually and independently had the right to secede peacefully.

Copyright © 2022 by Thomas Coley Allen.

More political articles.

Jefferson and States’ Rights

Jefferson and States’ Rights

Thomas Allen

In Chaining Down Leviathan: The American Dream of Self-Government 1776-1865 (McClellanville, South Carolina: Abbeville Institute Press, 2021), Luigi Marco Bassani discusses Thomas Jefferson’s concept of States’ rights. The following summarizes that discussion.

Jefferson used “State” to designate the people of a State and not its government, which the people (body politic of that State) created. He advocated localism over nationalism; localism is more closely tied to liberty than is nationalism. Therefore, local interest should be superior to the national interest. Further, he supported self-government and elected officials being directly responsible and linked closely to the voters. Thus, he endorsed natural rights, limited government, and popular sovereignty.

Moreover, the government should be restricted to protecting life, liberty, and property and have a laissez-faire approach in economic matters. Consequently, he opposed the concentration and consolidation of power in a single center and, therefore, fervently opposed a strong federal government that decided the limits of its power.

States’ rights were the best and surest way to prevent the consolidation of power in the federal government. After all, the States had created the federal government as their agent to manage their common affairs, such as foreign relations. They did not create it to rule over them and to manage their internal affairs.

For Jefferson, tyranny rose from the concentration of power. States’ rights were the mechanism by which such tyranny could be prevented. Only by strictly construing the Constitution could the States be saved from being subservient to the federal government. Only when a State acting individually and independently could decide if a federal act exceeded the authority delegated to the federal government and could nullify such unconstitutional act within its territorial limits would the liberties and rights of the people be protected.

Jefferson favored a constitution that united the States concerning foreign affairs but kept the States separate and distinct in domestic concerns. Thus, the States were independent in everything within themselves but were united in everything respecting foreign countries. However, he opposed becoming entangled with other countries; therefore, he favored allowing merchants the freedom to manage their trade with foreign countries.

The Kentucky Resolutions, which Jefferson wrote, expressed the core of his concept of federalism, States’ rights, and constitutional doctrine. According to the Kentucky Resolutions, each State had the right to nullify within its own territory any federal act that if found exceeding the powers delegated to the federal government without the need of other States joining it. Thus, the Kentucky Resolutions expounded the political and judicial philosophy of Jefferson’s States’ rights.

Jefferson believed that the States were much better defenders of individual liberties than were federal courts. Consequently, he replaced the doctrine of natural rights as expounded by federal courts with the doctrine of States’ rights, which were more powerful and effective at protecting the liberties of individuals. Therefore, the States should be responsible for guarding the constitutional balance against the consolidation of power in the federal government.

As sovereign powers, the States entered into a compact to create a federal government as their agent, subordinate to the States, to carry out well-defined, limited functions. Since the States were sovereign parties that entered into the constitutional compact, the federal government, their agent, had no authority to expand its power without the agreement of the contracting parties, the States.

Consequently, Jefferson maintained that each State acting individually and independently could decide if an act of the federal government was contrary to the Constitution. If it found such an act unconstitutional, it could nullify that act within its territory.

Although Jefferson adored the Union, he valued the right of local self-government even more. Thus, he insisted that freedom and self-government could not be subordinated to the Union. Like many people before 1861, he contended that the Union was an experiment in liberty and not an end in itself. Moreover, he thought that local self-government and not the Union was the guarantor of the safety and happiness of the people.

Also, Jefferson objected to the notion that the Constitution gave the federal government implied powers as Alexander Hamilton had argued. Furthermore, the Supremacy Clause in the Constitution did not give the federal government absolute supremacy over the States. Not all federal laws are the supreme law of the land. Only those laws enacted pursuant to one of the delegated powers are supreme. Otherwise, State laws are supreme.

To Jefferson, the Union was a true federation with the federal government having a few delegated functions and powers as set out in the Constitution. Only with the consent of the States through the amendment process could it expand its power. He considered federalism as an end in itself with self-governing States being supreme over the federal government. Moreover, he rejected the notion that the Bill of Rights applied to the States and asserted that it only applied to the federal government.

Jefferson also rejected the notion that a federal common law existed. Each State had its own common law system that applied solely within its borders. However, no American common law existed.

He feared that if the federal legal system incorporate common law, Congress could expand its power by revising and integrating the principles of common law. If this were to happen, constitutional limitations on the federal government would vanish. Congress could legislate in all cases whatsoever. If common law were to limit federal legislative activity, then the judiciary would acquire legislative power. If common law became a body of law, the Constitution would cease limiting the powers of the federal government. In any event, the incorporation of American common law into the federal legal system would be disastrous for the liberties of the people and States’ rights. The Constitution and federal common law could not coexist in the American system of government.

Jefferson rejected the notion of the Supreme Court, which was part of the federal government, being the final arbitrator between a State and the federal government. If the Supreme Court were the final arbitrator, then Congress and the President, which were also part of the federal government, were being adjudicated by another part of the federal government, the Supreme Court, and not by the Constitution. If the federal government could force the States to comply with all federal laws whatsoever, whether according to the Constitution or in flagrant violation of it, then federalism would cease to exist except in name only. Consequently, the States were and ought to be the final judges of the constitutionality of federal acts. (Being part of the federal government, federal courts has no incentive to prevent the consolidation of power in the federal government. History has shown that not only do federal courts place little constraint against such consolidation, but they have often led in such consolation.)

Thus, Jefferson maintained that the authority of the Supreme Court to decide in the last resort did not extend to the rights of the States, which were parties to the constitutional compact. The States gave federal judges their delegated trusts. As original parties to the constitutional compact, each individual State was the ultimate judge of whether an act of the federal government was compatible with the Constitution. As a creation of the Constitution, the Supreme Court could not be the ultimate judge.

Since the defeat of the Confederacy, the federal government has been suppressing States’ rights and has almost extinguished them. As a result, liberty has faded and the tyranny that Jefferson feared has happened.

Copyright © 2022 by Thomas Coley Allen.

More political articles.

A Look at a Proponent of the Lincoln Constitution

A Look at a Proponent of the Lincoln Constitution

Thomas Allen

A proponent of the modern US Constitution that Lincoln and the Radical Republicans as furthered developed by Presidents Wilson and Franklin Roosevelt and carried to fruition by the Warren Court gave the United States claims that it is superior to the one that the founding fathers gave the country. To support his claim, he cites several Supreme Court rulings: Baker v. Carr, Roe v. Wade, Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka, Lawrence v. Texas, and Obergefell v. Hodges.

An explanation of each of the aforementioned Supreme Court rulings follow:

– Baker v. Carr: This ruling gave federal courts absolute power over drawing legislative and Congressional districts. This ruling led to establishing electoral districts of equal population on the principle of one person, one vote for State legislatures and congressional districts. Thus, States had to draw districts that shifted representation from rural areas to urban areas. Consequently, rural areas, which are typically more conservative than urban areas, lost political power. Moreover, at the time of this ruling, more Blacks lived in rural areas than in urban areas in the South. Thus, shifting representation from rural to urban areas resulted in under-representing Blacks. To overcome this problem a covert quota system was imposed on the Southern States. To ensure Black representation (overrepresentation) and to guarantee the election of Black candidates, Blacks and Negrophiles are concentrated in the districts that guarantee that Black candidates are elected. However, the States are forced to draw district boundaries so that such an outcome is not obvious.

– Roe v. Wade: This ruling legalized abortion. As a result, a large number of Black babies have been murdered. As a weapon to genocide Blacks, this ruling has been highly effective. Without abortion, the Black population would be much higher than it is.

– Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka: This ruling outlawed school segregation and led to the integration of Blacks into White society. Consequently, Blacks have been integrated and amalgamated with Whites. Integration is amalgamating Blacks with Whites, and, thus, it is leading to the genocide of Blacks. Consequently, this ruling has been a leading cause of the genocide of the American Negro.

– Lawrence v. Texas: This ruling legalizes homosexual activity. Thus, homosexual activity among Blacks was encouraged and increased. With Black men having sex with other men and Black women having sex with other women, the opportunity to reproduce is greatly reduced. Again, another ruling leading to the genocide of Blacks.

– Obergefell v. Hodges: This ruling legalized same-sex marriages. It leads to the genocide of Blacks in the same way that Lawrence v. Texas does.

Amazingly, this proponent omitted Loving v. Virginia. This ruling legalized interracial marriages. More than any other ruling of the Supreme Court, this ruling has resulted in genociding Blacks as interracial marriages have exploded over the years since this ruling. Thus, because of this ruling, Blacks are being bred out of existence, which is genocide. 

Although most of these rulings are hostile to White supremacy, they also promote the genocide of Blacks. Thus, they are far more harmful to the American Negro, the American Black, than is White supremacy. At least White supremacy promotes policies that preserve the Black race while these rulings lead to policies that genocide Blacks.

According to this proponent, these rulings have undone many of the racist rulings and laws of the past. For him, White supremacy is highly destructive of liberty. Also, for him, liberty is civil rights. Based on the Supreme Court rulings that he cites, he is a homophile and an albusphobe (and subconsciously a Negrophobe).

This proponent believes that White supremacists control the country and that the 1619 Project is the true history of the United States. (At least, he is partially correct. The founding fathers did establish the United States under the Constitution of 1787 as a White man’s country. [See “For Whom Is the Constitution Written?” and “Addendum to ‘For Whom Is the Constitution Written?’” by Thomas Allen.]) Further, he believes everything that the establishment and ruling elite indoctrinate about race and is an adherent of Critical Race Theory.

Being a proponent of the Lincoln constitution, he must also approve the dysgenic results of the Lincoln constitution. The Lincoln constitution has brought the welfare state, which has led to the degeneration of Blacks. The welfare state encourages the reproduction of low-quality people and discourages the reproduction of high-quality people. Thus, Blacks with lower IQ and character — low-quality Blacks — are paid to reproduce. Moreover, high-quality Blacks, Blacks with higher IQ and character, are more likely to marry outside their race — thus, leading to the genocide of higher quality Blacks.

Furthermore, this proponent of the Lincoln constitution believes that the races of man are fictions, i.e., a social construct; therefore, the races do not exist. Yet, he denies the logic of his belief because he believes that White supremacy and racism are the country’s biggest problems. Logically, if the races do not exist, then White supremacy and racism cannot exist. If the races do not exist, then no one can be superior to or discriminate against a nonexistent race. Consequently, civil rights laws and court rulings on racial integration are unnecessary and are an irrational intrusion on the rights of the people in the name of a fiction. It would be better for Congress and the courts to confess the truth that races do not exist and, therefore, racial supremacy, racial discrimination, and racism do not and cannot exist. Thus, all civil rights issues are resolved.

As shown above, the constitution that Lincoln gave the country is not only detrimental to liberty, it also genocides the American Negro. Moreover, it creates irrational and illogical people like this proponent of the Lincoln constitution.

Copyright © 2022 by Thomas Coley Allen.

More political articles.

No Longer a Federation of Republics

 No Longer a Federation of Republics

Thomas Allen

The United States are no longer a federation of republics. That federation and the original Constitution died with Lincoln’s War. Now the United States is (notice the change in the verb from the previous sentence) a judgeocracy with an imperial president and an impotent Congress.

John Marshall, Chief Justice of the US Supreme Court, laid the foundation for a judgeocracy. President Abraham Lincoln established the imperial presidency with his war to suppress Southern independence. Presidents Woodrow Wilson and Franklin Roosevelt carried the imperial presidency to completion.

By the middle of the twentieth century, the judicial coup d’etat had been completed. Chief Justice Earl Warren completed what Marshall had started. Now the United States are a judgeocracy with an imperial president.

Under judicial rule, federal judges under the supervision of the Supreme Court have usurped the legislative authority of the State legislatures. Federal courts have absolute control over the States even to the point of forcing State governments to levy taxes to spend on a judge’s predilection. Federal judges even intervene on purely political issues like drawing boundaries for legislative districts. The States have been reduced to little more than personal fiefdoms of federal judges.

Also, federal judges under the supervision of the Supreme Court have usurped the legislative authority of Congress. Judges, especially those on the Supreme Court, have usurped the power to rewrite laws that Congress has enacted to suit their preferences. If Congress enacts a law that they do not like, they veto it. If Congress fails to enact a law that the Supreme Court desires, it will enact such a law with a ruling on a related issue. Thus, the Supreme Court is an unaccountable legislative body. 

Moreover, the Supreme Court has even usurped the authority to amend the Constitution — however, without changing the words of the Constitution. Why bother getting two-thirds of each house of Congress and three-fourths of the States to agree on an amendment when five judges can amend it with their rulings?

What does the Supreme Court use as a guide for amending, vetoing, and promulgating laws? It certainly is not the Constitution. Instead of the Constitution, the Justices of the Supreme Court use their personal biases and prejudices.

Thus, the Supreme Court has elevated itself above the Constitution. It has claimed the sole and final power to decide what the Constitution means, and it amends the Constitution with its rulings to conform with its whims. Whatever the Supreme Court rules is the supreme law of the land. Its rulings are superior to the Constitution. (The Supreme Court gives the Constitution only cursory and perfunctory notice.)

Federal judges no longer seem able to distinguish between the judicial function and the legislative function. Since Marshall, personal biases and personal preferences are much more of a guide in their ruling than is the Constitution and even the clear wording and intent of the law.

Similarly, the executive branch has usurped the legislative authority of Congress  — often with Congress delegating its legislative power to the executive branch. Congress has created numerous regulatory agencies that have the authority to issues regulations that have the effect of law. Further, the President often issues executive orders that have the effect of law. Consequently, Congress enervates its vitality.

Thus, the United States became a judgeocracy with an imperial president, an impotent Congress, and emasculated States. The federation of republican States (nations) that the Constitution established died long ago never to be resurrected.

Copyright © 2022 by Thomas Coley Allen.

More political articles.