HR 838 TAPS Act – Constitutional Review
by KrisAnne Hall, JD
The text of the TAPS Act is not the solution to gun violence many members of Congress are professing it to be. The unlimited and arbitrary authority this Act bestows upon a bureaucracy of 24 people, combined with the language of double-speak and contradictions creating loopholes allowing completely unsupervised and unchecked authority is reminiscent of the Sedition Act of 1798.
The Task Force:
This Act mandates the Secretary of Homeland Security to establish a Joint Behavioral Threat Assessment and Management Task Force: a 24 member bureaucracy consisting of one government employee (level GS-15 or above) and 23 people from non-governmental organizations of the Secretary’s choosing. Not a single member of this 24 person bureaucracy will be elected by the people, therefore the people will retain no control whatsoever over the actions or activity of this newly created bureaucracy that will possess, by Congressional consent, an enormous amount of arbitrary and unchecked power over the people (see §4(a)).
Purpose of the Task Force:
The sole purpose of this task force is “identifying individuals who are exhibiting patterns of concerning behavior” and create a power to control those people on a federal and local level (§3(2)) This Act contains no clear definition of “concerning behavior.” As a matter of fact, the Act relies upon the Task Force (24 non-elected bureaucrats) to first DEFINE “concerning behavior” and then empower the “monitors” tasked with “identifying individuals” that exhibit that behavior. According to (§3(2)(a)) no actual criminal act must take place to invoke the power this bureaucracy will create. A federal or local agent must only believe an individual is “interested” in committing their definition of “concerning behavior” to summon this new and undefined power to action. The DHS will then be "empowered" to implement these arbitrary rules with no acknowledgement to any of rights of the people. To take the legal-eeze off it, this is intended to create a registry of people who may commit crimes at some unspecified and unknown time in the future. This registry will then be used to begin a step-by-step usurpation of their individual rights, from the assumption of innocence and due process to the 1st and 2nd Amendments and more.
Power from the Task Force:
Once an federal or State agent has identified an American believed to be interested in some kind of concerning behavior, §3(2)(b) authorizes the Bureaucracy to empower these agents to investigate and gather information from multiple sources (sources remain undefined in this Act) on this individual American to find “articulable facts” supporting whether this person is truly exhibiting an “interest” in committing “concerning behavior.” The 4th Amendment requires government to obtain a warrant based upon probable cause (not articulable facts), supported by oath or affirmation, particularly describing the places to be searched and the persons or things to be seized. Under the 4th Amendment it is impossible for this Task Force to empower any government agent to do what Congress has authorized it to do. But the Act makes no mention of the 4th Amendment or the government’s requirement to respect & secure the Rights of the people.
According to §3(2)(c) of this Act, after the agent has compiled its “articulable facts” by circumventing the 4th Amendment’s requirements on government, the Bureaucracy will empower the government agent to “manage” the threat of “concerning behavior.” There is no definition within the Act for the word “manage.” However, the “Powers of the Task Force” are defined in §4(f) as follows:
“Any member of the Task Force may, if authorized by the Task Force, take any action which the Task Force is authorized to take by this section.”
While there are no guidelines created by Congress on how this Bureaucracy is supposed to define “manage” or "identify" the behavior of Americans, §2 of the Act establishes that the Task Force will create its own “ guidelines and best practices” in order to devise a “national standard” of action. Therefore, it seems indisputable through §2 and §4(f) that any member of the Task force can create any power for the agents to take any action it chooses as long the Task Force will establish the guidelines and practices for such action. The only limit of on the power of the government agent or agency as a whole, rests solely upon the whim of the individual bureaucrat and the bureaucracy to limit itself.
When a bureaucracy’s entire existence (funding & job security) relies upon the identification and subsequent management of Americans with “concerning behavior,” it is hard to imagine the bureaucrats will not find what they seek. The simple exercise of this newly invented authority will create a chilling effect on freedoms of speech, press, assembly, and redress. Many Americans will choose to remain silent to avoid any potential exercise of this power over their lives. Our Bill of Rights was ratified to prevent precisely this kind of totalitarian power over the people. When Americans withhold their voice out of fear of reprisal, in First Amendment law, we call this the “chilling effect” of the unconstitutional exercise of unauthorized government power.
Congress retains no real authority to check, balance, limit, modify, or control the exercise of power created by this bureaucracy, whatsoever. The only requirement for this new bureaucracy is to create the new behavioral police in America and after one year the Secretary (the GS-15 government employee) will submit a report to Congress telling Congress what they have been doing for the past year. The Act then requires DHS to report to Congress once a year every subsequent year on how the guidelines are working, not as a check and balance.
A deceived member of Congress may attempt to assert that the only authority of the Bureaucracy is to make “suggestions to Congress” as to what the proper course of action should be. However, that assertion can be seen as pure error by reading §3(2)(c) of this Act.
A deceived member of Congress may believe that this federal bureaucracy will have no power over the State and local police powers. However §8 of this Act establishes that federal grant money will be given to local jurisdictions which will undeniably establish the power for this Bureaucracy to control our local and State authorities once they accept that money. (Surely the American people recognize this slight of hand by now!)
A deceived Supreme Court, upon legal challenge, will likely fail to recognize this Act to be vague and full of self-defining authority for a non-elected bureaucracy. SCOTUS has long held great deference to federal agencies and their agents to define their own authority and procedures when Congress leaves holes in the laws.
The Constitution delegates no authority to Congress to fund, recommend, or create a behavioral police for the people. The writing of this Act and the Act’s website proves that every co-sponsor of this Bill knows this as fact! First, the Act makes no mention of due process, the rights of the people, nor any reliance upon or limit established by the Constitution of the United States. Secondly, if you go to the Bill’s website and click on the hyperlink **“Constitutional Authority Statement” the link takes you back to a copy of the Bill text, with no statement of authority whatsoever. Underpinning this act is NOT the Constitution but fear of guns on the left and fear of terrorists on the right.
So, with the passage of this Act, Congress will create a Bureaucracy who will be empowered to create its own guidelines and procedures on how it will operate to define, identify, and enforce government control upon its self-defined “concerning behavior” of individuals in America: Complete autonomous, arbitrary, self-defined authority resting in the hands of bureaucrats elected by no one, controlled by no one. This Act, on its face, violates the 4th, 5th, 6th, and 8th Amendments. But as in every arbitrary law, the whole truth of its offense to the rights of the people cannot be fully known until the law is put into action. If this Act is used as some members of Congress profess, it is highly likely that execution of this Act will violate large swaths of the Constitution — including 1st, 2nd, 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th, 8th, 9th, and 10th Amendments. Constitution and rights of the people be damned, the bureaucrats will have their power under the illusion of keeping people safe.
Members of Congress are championing this Bill as the be all, end all solution to gun violence in America, yet the Bill does not even once mention the words “gun” or “ammunition.” It should be clear now that the TAPS Act is not about gun control at all, it is about People Control. It will target any American who voices, types, or indicates a thought toward questioning government policy, people, or power. (See the FBI Memo defining and identifying the “new” standard for domestic terrorist.)
How any politician who professes a knowledge of the Constitution or professes a love for America, her people, and their rights could EVER back this insidious piece of legislation is completely beyond my comprehension. And as Patrick Henry said in 1788, Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel. It’s time for the American people to hold these pretend patriots suspect and tell them to change their vote or change their vocation.
If any person, including members of Congress would like to discuss this with me, my door is open. My website: KrisAnneHall.com
**NOTE: Since the publication of this article, the Act website has been updated to include a reference to the “commerce clause” as authority for this Act. If you want to understand why this is not a valid use of authority for this Act, please attend this course at Liberty First University:
General Welfare & Commerce Clauses: https://www.krisannehall.com/index.php/preview-courses/254-general-welfare-and-commerce-clauses
Public Statement on Racism
by KrisAnne Hall, JD
Racism is and probably always will be a vile blight on humanity. I do and will always condemn racism and acts of violence. I am blessed beyond measure to have married into my biracial family and have adopted my biracial son. I couldn't hate a race without hated those I hold so dear. But just to clarify for those who don't know me personally:
Today, I had the opportunity of speaking to a group that is accused of having odious and racist views. Some accused me of sharing the same alleged views simply because I showed up to speak. I can't speak to what any group or members of that group may believe, since I was there to share what I believe, which is that ALL deserve liberty and ALL deserve sound representation from elected representatives who operate within the confines of America's Constitutional Rule of Law.
Obviously, what those listening believe does not change my message whatsoever. And I will never shy away from sharing truth to whomever is willing to listen, particularly if they are as messed up as people claim.
Today's presentation on State and local responsibility always contains a message promoting liberty and love of neighbor. I always admonish those who cry for violence and civil war and tell them that our solutions are peaceful and that unity, not division, makes America strong. I said the same today as I spoke. Whether those seeds find root is between God and the hearer. But I don't believe positive change takes place by each side shouting at each other from across the road. Conversion takes connection. This is the reason I am not intimidated by "guilt-by-association" slander. If I can sow seeds of truth to change the heart of even one KKK member, then I will speak to him. If I get called a racist for speaking truth to a racist, then so be it. I also have no beef with peaceful protesters. But if I am given access to those who need truth, I will always take the opportunity to speak directly to a person, rather than protest from outside.
While some may find disagreement with how I believe the Constitution should be applied, what you will never find is me conveying or promoting a message of hate and violence. God is no respecter of persons. There is neither Jew nor Greek, bond nor free, in the sight of God. I condemn any and all forms of racism, violence, or racial supremacy. There is no superior race or color, only sinners in need of God's loving-kindness and redemption through Jesus Christ. My husband who is of African descent believes the same and my adopted son, who is Mexican, is being taught the same as well. We will go where the truth is needed and we will never be bullied into silence by the critics.
Racism is hate and hate must be overcome with truth SPOKEN in love. That takes contact. That takes the hard task of meeting face to face and speaking reason. You can shout the words love and peace through a bullhorn, but that will never make them a reality. Somebody is going to have to make a human connection. I am willing to be that someone, even if it means I must suffer the slings and arrows of those distracted by the current narrative of hate and c=deceived by the lies of those who continue to profit off the division of America.
Is it time yet to leave behind the habits of the last 150 years and start VOTING Principle over Party?
Is it time yet for Americans to physically stand together to put Liberty over security?
Is it time yet for the American people to turn away from cult of personality and turn to the principle of Truth over Personality?
So I am just wondering is it time yet?
Can A State Alter Qualifications for Election of The President Of The United States
by KrisAnne Hall, JD
The Office of the President of these United States was designed to be a representative of the States in foreign affairs and the chief executive of the federal government. Article 2 of the Constitution establishes the qualifications for this office, the conditions upon which the President is to serve and the limited powers delegated.
Article 2 section 1 establishes that the President will hold office during the term of 4 years. Article 2 section 1 clauses 2 and 3 provide that the President is not to be elected by popular vote but by representatives of the States, called “Electors.” The number of Electors of each State is established by the number of Senators and Representatives a State has in Congress. These Electors are appointed by the State Legislature and shall cast their vote for two people, one of which cannot be a resident of their own State. Article 2 section 1 clause 5 requires every person running for office of President must be a “natural born Citizen,” thirty-five years old or older, and have lived within the United States for fourteen consecutive years. The rest of Article 2 addresses the duties and obligations of the president once elected to office.
So in summary, the Constitution establishes that there are 4 requirements for an individual to be eligible to run for President:
The Constitution of the United States was established as a contract between the States primarily to create a Union of States and a central government to establish a unified voice for the States in foreign affairs. The Constitution creates the federal government not only by establishing the offices of the federal government, but also by specifically enumerating powers to each of its 3 branches. The entire purpose for delegating each specific power to the federal government as opposed to reserving that power to the State was to create uniformity throughout the Union for specific federal and foreign functions. The Tenth Amendment orders that every power not delegated to the federal government is reserved to the States and the people. When a power is delegated to the federal government, all State-members of the Union are required by contract to be bound by the laws created to execute that particular power. Article 6 clause 2 is the law on this matter and it states the following:
“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.”
The requirements for the qualifications of the office of the President are established by the Constitution. The purpose of the Constitution establishing these requirements is so that the terms upon which a president is elected is uniform throughout the States. Therefore, the power to create the qualifications for the office of the President are not reserved to the States and the States are bound by the Constitution’s requirements upon the office of President through their agreement to be part of the American Union.
It is completely unconstitutional for a State to add to or take away from the requirements for the office of President established by the Constitution. Not only would that be a violation of Article 2, Article 6, and the Tenth Amendment, but it would create utter chaos during federal elections. If each State was permitted to establish their own independent criteria for election of the president candidates eligible in one State could be ineligible in another State. The American people could never be confident they had a qualified candidate.
There is only one circumstance that the Article 2 qualification for office of the President does not apply to a candidate and that is the selection of a presidential candidate through the primary election. A primary election is not a civic event. A primary election is a private corporate event. There is much confusion about this fact because Americans, over many decades, have been led to believe that political parties are part of the government. They are not.
Political parties are private corporate clubs which is why they can establish exclusive memberships and are exempt from certain provisions of the non-discrimination clause of the Civil Rights Act. Primary elections are how political parties, aka private corporate clubs, choose the candidates that will represent them in the truly civic event we call general elections. For the purpose of primary elections, political parties can ADD qualifying criteria to the office of president. For example, a political party can require a candidate must be a member of the political party, must have served within the party for a designated number of years, or any other limiting factor as long as the party maintains the Article 2 qualifications as well. Because a primary election is actually a private corporate club event, many States hold closed primaries where only members of the private corporate club can vote in primary elections. In reality, primary elections should never be paid for by tax dollars and should not be coordinated using State resources or funds. The people of the State would never facilitate or fund the election of the CEO of Mc Donald’s Corporations so why are they funding and facilitating the election of the Chief Executive Candidate for the private corporations we know as Republican or Democrat Parties?
With these facts and the wisdom of the intent of those who wrote and ratified the Constitution we must conclude that no State government can constitutionally add or detract from the qualifications of the office of the President. To do so is a violation of the Constitution and a violation of the contractual agreement each State has with each other through the Constitution. In addition to this truth, any State that attempts to alter the qualifications of any candidate during a primary election would be a violation of that private corporate club’s right to the property of their corporate elections, it would be an unlawful government taking and a violation of due process.
So what are the remedies to unlawful interference with elections on the State government level? If that violation occurs during the primary election, the private corporate club party, the candidate, and the members of that club should sue the State and every Supervisor of Elections in a court of law for an injunction to prevent the interference and compel compliance. If that violation occurs during a general election, the people of the State and the candidate should again sue the State and every Supervisor of Elections in a court of law for an injunction to prevent the interference and compel compliance. In addition to the private law suit, the governor of every other State should issue a Resolution of Condemnation to the offending State for violating the terms of the Contract, the Constitution, and issue a demand for redress and restoration of the constitutional standard. If the offending State should refuse to comply, according to Article 2, Section 1, Clauses 3, the President of the Senate must refuse to acknowledge the ballot from that offending State as it does not comply with the Constitutional Standard.
These remedies will only sound extreme to those who are not educated on the terms of the Constitution and the principles of contract law followed by those who ratified the Constitution. Alexander Hamilton wrote in Federalist #78:
“There is no position which depends on clearer principles, than that every act of a delegated authority, contrary to the tenor of the commission under which it is exercised, is void. No legislative act, therefore, contrary to the Constitution, can be valid.”
We must get back in the habit of applying the Constitution as it was intended. When we do, we will see that the remedies are simple and based upon contract law and common sense. Government only becomes complicated when we set aside the standard of the Constitution and rely on the word of politicians, pundits, and professors instead of the words and intent of Madison, Jefferson, and Mason. The Constitutional crisis exist not in the failings of the Constitution but in the failure to abide by the Constitution.
Nullification or Article V conventions?
By KrisAnne Hall, JD
Article V Conventions and Nullification are NOT mutually exclusive, nor is one the magic pill for all of our federal problems. Each is a legitimate Constitutional solution, but each has a different aim and application. Each plan has its inherent dangers and there are legitimate concerns that should be considered and these dangers guarded against. They can be used together in the defense of Liberty as long as we understand each in its own context and consider the pitfalls involved. It must be noted that we are having this discussion because of the very fact that we have stepped so far out of the Constitutional boundaries given to this government that we are operating practically in a post-Constitutional America. At this point, it is unlikely that any solution will be perfect or without peril.
Two different animals
Article V Convention is a long term fix aimed at making corrections at the federal level. Nullification is an immediate defense at the state, local and individual level. Article V aims to make structural changes or further clarifications to the operations of the federal government and its relation to the states by amending the Constitution. Nullification aims to make no changes to the current Constitution, but is simply an assertion by the individual sovereign states and communities of the authority they already possess and a declaration of the limitations to federal power already defined by the Constitution. Article V convention in the current context seeks to fix what is assumed to be broken or lacking in the federal system and is to be used in the rarest of circumstances. Nullification, as intended by the framers, was to be a part of “republican maintenance,” whereby the central government was to be continually kept in check by its masters, the people through their states.
Both have their merits and their dangers. Let us take a look some concerns that the framers themselves noted. We should keep these things in mind so that we can work TOGETHER to defeat the common enemy…TYRANNY.
Some of the challenges with Article V:
WHO are the delegates and what is their motivation?
According to James Madison in Federalist 49, one significant problem with conventions is – WHO will be the delegates? Madison discusses two options for choosing delegates: either through the Legislators or through popular vote of the people. In each case he believed there was cause for concern.
In modern terms, when delegates are chosen by the legislators, what we could see are appointments based upon party loyalty, power or popularity rather than upon Constitutional expertise and dedication to Liberty principles. When the delegates are chosen by popular vote, typical election dynamics could determine the outcome. Voters would vote based upon party popularity and perhaps even a “lesser of two evils” and the same corrupt politicians would now be “fixing” the very problems they created. Madison framed the outcome this way, “The same influence which had gained them an election into the legislature, would gain them a seat in the convention… They would consequently be parties to the very question to be decided by them.”
According to Madison, the real difficulty with delegates boils down to “motivation”. What will be the motivating force behind the delegates and their amendments? Madison recognized that the only reason we have our current Constitution is that the framers had just come from a bloody revolution that kept the delegates focused upon LIBERTY and that forced them to set aside their party politics and personal motivations and it was still no easy path:
“We are to recollect that all the existing constitutions were formed in the midst of a danger which repressed the passions most unfriendly to order and concord; of an enthusiastic confidence of the people in their patriotic leaders, which stifled the ordinary diversity of opinions on great national questions; of a universal ardor for new and opposite forms, produced by a universal resentment and indignation against the antient government;” ~ James Madison Federalist 49
Madison seems to be telling us that without some overriding and unifying motivation, the convention would likely degrade into another Republican vs. Democrat drama. If we cannot get delegates that are properly constitutionally minded rather than driven by political gain and greed, this will never benefit us.
WHEN will it be done?
One practical difference between nullification and convention is the time each takes to implement. Any advocate of Article V must admit that this is a LONG TERM goal and not a quick fix. To call convention, choose delegates, agree on amendments, an Article V convention could take several years, possibly 5 to 10 years. Adding to the time frame is the Article V requirement of 3/4 ratification by the States. That means EVERY AMENDMENT must be agreed upon (debated), individually, by 3/4 of the States to ratify. During such a time frame, it would be prudent to use nullification to puts the brakes on at the state level until corrections (if truly needed) can be made at the federal level.
What will be the scope and impact?
Probably the most debated aspect is the notion of a “runaway convention.” Some say the ¾ ratification is a check on a runaway convention, that ¾ of the states would never go along with a total rewrite of the Constitution or the addition of harmful amendments. Of course, ¾ of the states DID ratify the very harmful 16th and 17th amendments. Tinkering with the foundation is always risky business. SO at the end of the day it may well come back to the main issue of the motivation, focus and education of the people and their delegates. What about the opposite of a runaway convention? What about a do-nothing convention? What if we do open-heart surgery on the Constitution for something as cosmetic as a balanced budget amendment?!
First, Nullification is a constitutional solution not because it is enumerated per se, but because the Constitution is a contract (technically a compact) among the States that created the federal government. The States are the parties to the Constitutional Contract and the federal government is the PRODUCT of that contract. Inherent in EVERY contract is the right of the parties to that contract to control the product of the contract. The States are the representatives of the people in this contract and have a DUTY to keep the federal government within its constitutional boundaries and thus protecting the rights of the people. It is inherent in the very nature of the Constituion. Nullification is that act of the PEOPLE through their States to keep the federal government within in its “limited and defined” boundaries and should be as regularly carried out as an oil change in your car. Madison states this principle again in Federalist 49:
“As the people are the only legitimate fountain of power, and it is from them that the constitutional charter, under which the several branches of government hold their power, is derived; it seems strictly consonant to the republican theory, to recur to the same original authority, not only whenever it may be necessary to enlarge, diminish, or new-model the powers of government; but also whenever any one of the departments may commit encroachments on the chartered authorities of the others.”
This is not the forum for a full explanation of Nullification. If you are unfamiliar with this term or have in the past heard that it is not an option available to the States for a myriad of reasons, please take the time to read the FACTS about nullification before you give in to any one position. THIS LINK will get you started.
Fear of Nullification
The first problem with nullification is fear and lack of education. For some, nullification’s association (rightly or wrongly) with the Civil War and slavery (despite the fact that it was used to resist slavery) throws a veil of fear over the entire issue. So care must be taken not to add fuel to the fire of racial division because those who capitalize on such things will use it for their own design. Many mistruths and misconceptions regarding this Liberty solution must be overcome in order to even utilize this option. Retorts such as “the South lost the war,” “SCOTUS says no,” or “it’s the law of the land” are common among those ignorant of the concepts of State and local autonomy and nullification.
Even as nullification happens all around us today with, States legalizing marijuana and same sex marriage; states denying the federal government power to enforce the indefinite detention provisions of NDAA 2012 and Obamacare; local and state governments refusing to enforce federal gun restrictions, some will still say that nullification is an obscure and outdated concept. With more than 100 years of distorted history, overcoming fear and lack of education surrounding Nullification is no easy task.
Participation by the States:
Whereas Article V requires 3/4 of the States to ratify any amendment, Nullification can be achieved on a State by State basis. However, many staes that would at first glance be thought to be inclined to resist federal encroachment are often controlled by “federal supremacists,” those who believe that the federal government is superior to the states. Many state legislators do not understand the true nature of the states’ relationship to the federal government and they understand the states’ right and duty to interposition even less.
Federal Enforcement of Unconstitutional Acts
One more roadblock to nullification is the acquiescence to federal bullying and bribery. The dirty little secret is that the feds generally do not have the resources to enforce most of its dictates; it must co-opt state and local resources. This is done primarily through bullying and legalized bribery. The feds use state EPA, state DOE, state and local law enforcement elements to enforce its demands. In most cases the state and local entities comply. Without such compliance the federal dictates would be ineffective and in most cases unenforceable. The most obvious attempt at forced compliance will be through the withholding of federal funds. Any State who intends to maintain their supremacy over the federal government will have to be able to become self-sufficient in the face of federal funding withdrawal and brave leaders will have to be willing to call the bully’s bluff. In an arena where it’s all about the money and in a political system where politicians climb the ladder of power by giving and receiving favors this is also a significant obstacle.
Sometimes opponents of nullification characterize the concept as “ignoring laws you don’t like.” The question at issue in nullification is not whether we like the law or not, the question is whether the law is constitutional or not. A possible danger is that states may wish to “nullify” inherent natural rights, such as those protected in the bill of rights from the abuse of the federal government. When such tyranny arises on the state level, the citizens must be ready to resist this tyranny as well, or else choose to live as slaves.
The REAL Solution lies within the operation of BOTH methods!
What Article V conventions cannot do to stop tyranny now, nullification can if successfully implemented accomplish with near immediate effect. Where Nullification ends, Article V provides a long term solution to strengthening the restraints on the federal government, if done by the right people for the right reasons in the right way. If we DO NOT engage in Nullification now, we will never survive as a republic long enough for the Article V Convention to have any hopes. If we just engage in Nullification and do not follow through with shoring up the established boundaries, I believe we will dissolve into individual sovereign States and the Republic will die.
We will not succeed if we are so caught up in our own causes that we have to defeat everyone else’s. That is egocentric and immature. Truth be told, we will not succeed without all the efforts of all the people working together in the defense of Liberty. We need nullification daily to maintain the Republic, yet if we continue to allow the foundation to erode, we may indeed need a convention to right the ship.
So let’s approach the defense of Liberty like grown-ups. Let’s work together instead of trying to punch each other in the eye to elevate ourselves.
I have confidence that when all is said and done, our future will look back and say, “Coming up with a new and better form of government was nearly impossible. The original Constitution itself was not the problem; it was the ignorance of the people that lived under it.”
If you want more detailed information about this discussion go to my book Sovereign Duty! Also available thru many online book stores