To preserve and to transmit the blessings of civil and religious freedom, is the declared object of the people of the United States of America, in establishing their present form of government. The question, Will our liberties endure? has ever been one of deep solicitude to every true American patriot; a question to which different answers have been formed by different minds.

It is generally conceded, that no other system of government ever devised, is so well adopted to secure the objects for which all just governments are instituted, as our own. Its excellence alone, however can not insure its duration. The grand element of its strength, is the public virtue and intelligence. Hence, the only well-founded hope of permanent political prosperity, lies in an efficient system of education.

Education is an interest of high importance to the people under any form of government; but it is more especially so in this country, where the people are not only in theory the source of power, but in practice are actually called upon to take an efficient part in constituting and administering the government. The exercise of political power ought to be directed by an enlightened judgment. The right of suffrage can scarcely be esteemed a privilege to him who is incapable of exercising it with discretion. While the Constitution gives as much weight to the vote of the uninformed and ignorant, as to that of the well-instructed and intelligent citizen, the sources of information should be as numerous and as widely extended as possible.

Every citizen inspired with a just degree of patriotic pride, must desire to qualify himself for the intelligent discharge of his duties and responsibilities, whether as an elector or private citizen only, or as one called to take a more direct part in the administration of the government. It is certainly to be lamented, that questions of public policy of vital interest, perhaps involving constitutional principles, and even liberty itself, are not infrequently decided at the ballot-box, by those who have never given the Constitution the slightest examination.

DULOCRACY IN AMERICA, VOLUME I is in no sense a biography of Franklin Delano Roosevelt. It rather sets out some of the legal history behind his New Deal legislation and how these programs were utilized in the United States, at both the State and Federal levels. The story is one of subterfuge and apostasy. It illustrates how the opportunists in government have worked diligently to create a scheme for relieving an uninformed citizenry of the federal union of their inherent and Constitutionally secured rights, through a process that has been evolving for over one hundred years. In the first half of the twentieth century, the people themselves, by clearly abandoning their individual responsibilities to God, themselves, their posterity and ancestors, aided in the transformation of this nation from a constitutional democracy in republican form to a cleverly cloaked socialistic/communistic oligarchy. What was conceived as a nation of confederated sovereign states united by and under the federal Constitution as the result of the direct and deliberate act of the duly authorized representatives of a once free and self-regulating People, metamorphosed into a collective endeavor pointed to the management of a large population under principles legally associated with mass peonage. Both the labor and persons of the citizenry being converted into little more than commodities or resources, to be consumed and controlled for the purpose of promoting a socialistic concept of utopia founded on a hopelessly insolvent welfare state. The saddest part of the story is that the people, by active counter-revolutionary endeavor or by indolent acquiescence have, with the rarest exceptions, both promoted and enforced upon their neighbors, the values and norms of this usurpation system.

This work provides examples of the most important legal references illustrating the statutes and regulations that have been passed and promulgated by government, along with historical documentation and court decisions adjudicating and construing legal issues and constitutional relationships surrounding the commerce clause of the national Constitution.

In attempting to understand the relationships of the different materials presented, it is important to remember the following ideas.

1. The statutes of the various states of the federal Union, are passed under the sovereign authority of the several state legislatures. The state constitutions have been considered by both the federal judiciary and the courts of the various states to be declarations of "limitations of power" placed by a sovereign people upon the government they created as their own free and voluntary act. It is clear, to any legitimate thinker, that while the state may theoretically possess unlimited power to provide for its own self-preservation, it cannot, by any legally proper means, hold any greater power than any one of the people who comprise the least common denominator of the political power that created it. In other words, the state cannot properly exercise its "police powers" in excess of the limitations express, or of necessity implied, in its respective constitution. The Federal Government, on the other hand, is a creature constructed upon the basis of "granted powers." These powers are expressly stated in the Constitution of the United States of America, and are conclusive evidence of the extent of the power possessed by the federal organism. If the national Constitution does not evidence a power expressly, or by necessary implication, where such is allowed by the language of that instrument, then that power does not legally exist. The Bill of Rights is a statement, or perhaps a reminder in the form of a restatement, to the Federal Government, of the rights possessed and retained by the National Citizenry and all persons within the political and territorial jurisdiction of the United States. The rights alluded to, or expressly declared in the "Bill" were not created by either the federal Constitution, nor the Bill of Rights. The people (Citizenry) of the several States of America, declared their sovereign will by establishing the Constitution and thereby creating the national government of the States united thereunder, and which were previously united under the Articles of Confederation, also an instrument intended to be perpetual in nature. The shortcomings of that document, and the system of general government it provided, were meant to be supplemented by the Constitution, in order to form a "more perfect Union." There was no intent mentioned in the Constitution designed to lessen the powers of the free citizenry of the federal Union. The last two of the Articles in Amendment to the Constitution, declare for all to see, that the People intended to limit the powers of the newly formed Federal Government to those enumerated, and expressly reserved all others to the states of the Union, or to the People themselves. The Constitution formulated the National Common Law, and reduced its governing rules to written form, to be seen and preserved as a hallmark and bastion of a free and moral society. But most important, it operated as a limit upon the Federal Government, not as a license to expand its scope of authority.

In order to understand the true import and intent of the federal Constitution, it is necessary to possess a knowledge of the English system of jurisprudence known as the "common law." The governing principles of this system were that of a fair trial by a jury of one's peers (neighbors), and a presumption that every man was responsible for his own acts in relation to his neighbor. In effect, a man was free to do as he would, even to the extent of making a fool of himself and his family, but his unqualified right of self regulation ended where his neighbors, or in England, the King's, began. When an excess occurred, it was considered a trespass, and would support a legal action at law for the purpose of redressing to the victim his grievance; or, stated another way, to restore him to a condition as nearly equal to that which he had enjoyed before the trespass as possible. The fundamental requirement for the common law to take notice of an action, be it "civil" or "criminal" in nature, was the availability of an injured body (corpus delecti) to be available for production before the court, or in the case of a statutory offense, witnesses available to testify of the factual elements constituting said offense, as well as to declare the fact of the defendant being the proper subject of the statute in question.

2. Today the laws passed by the U.S. Congress, are all policy declarations directed to administrators of federal departments or agencies. These officials are always clearly identified in a properly constructed statute. They are given the authority, by the Congress, to make binding regulations, which carry the force and effect of law, for the purpose of carrying into effect the expressed intent of the lawmaker. The true intent is to be found by the clear language of the statute and by resorting to the legislative history associated with it, if necessary.

The statutes passed by Congress are the law of the land and inasmuch as they are not repugnant to the principles of the Constitution, but are passed, or made, in pursuance thereto, are the supreme Law of the Land. So it is with treaties. But, no law or treaty may be of legal force if it operates in excess, or contravention of, the Constitution of the United States of America, for to do so would be to violate the National Common Law. Therefore, all statutes must pass the test of consistency with the Constitution. Typically, the Statutes of Congress, or "Statutes at Large," as they are commonly known, are evidenced by the various titles of the Code of the United States. Unless a specific "Title" (there are currently 50) has been declared to be positive law by Congress, it is only prima facie the law. In these cases, resort to the Statutes at Large and the legislative history behind the law are necessary. A title of the Code that has been declared positive law constitutes legal evidence of the law in the courts. However, it is still wise to research the history of the code section in question in order to make a proper determination as to the subject matter over which it was intended to operate. There is much of overextending the proper scope of federal laws in today's legal environment. Looking back at the regulations previously mentioned, these publications carry the effect of criminal penalties against offenders, generally not the statute or the corresponding section(s) of the U.S. Code. One stands in jeopardy for violating the regulation, not the statute, per se. And, it is the regulation which is promulgated under an empowering statute (grant of authority) that defines a department's power, through one of its agencies, to enforce the will of Congress. If no regulation exists which clearly defines one as a "person" described in the empowering statute, then one simply is not legally bound to perform to the regulations demands, nor is he subject to the penalties described by the statute or regulation. The regulation can never exceed the empowering statute's scope of effect, either as to the subject matter dealt with, or with reference to the prescribed penalty for its violation.

3. Among the powers granted Congress, perhaps the greatest of all is the power to control interstate commerce. The nature of this power is, however, for the purpose of maintaining open channels of commerce throughout the States, by not allowing the States to exercise dominion over those channels in a fashion which disturbs the capacity of the People to effectively engage in lawful business and commerce with their fellow Citizens in their own State, as well as in a sister State. A narrowly defined area relative to control of interstate commerce is also properly used in conjunction with the power to provide for the general welfare and allow activities designed to identify and seize various items which, by their nature (contaminated milk, cream, meat, etc.), pose an eminent threat to the health and well-being of the People. The phrase "provide for the general welfare," never included the socialistic concepts of the currently operating "welfare state," wherein the government seizes, by one means or another, the property of the private Citizen, and "redistributes" it to others. The only way such a process can be "legally" carried on is by first converting the Citizenry from their private and individual capacities into that of collective/commercial agents of government. Voluntarily participating in schemes which effectively constitute the government as one's owner/guardian, provides the needed "legal magic" to allow the regulatory laws of the government to directly affect you. In the vast majority of cases, such a situation provided the means for which the government can take the erstwhile private Citizen and make them to answer before a court of "law" for failure to measure up to the terms of some statute which, were it not for the grant of privilege which the Citizen had first sought from government, would never have had any more than a directory effect upon such Citizen.

Virtually all of the statutes passed by Congress since the mid 1930's hinge upon the "interstate commerce clause" and the "necessary and proper" clauses of the federal Constitution. As is evidenced in this work, the citizenry at large have effectively connected themselves with congressionally controlled privileges in exchange for what they perceived as promises of security in their individual lives. Unfortunately, they apparently never seriously considered the cunning of Congress, nor the declarations of the Supreme Court of the United States when it, on several occasions, has stated that no vested rights exist in these programs, including the Social Security program. So we see liberty under God traded for the bowl of sour pottage. Sweet in the mouth, yet bitter in the belly.

J.D. SWEENEY