Honor God - Defend the Family - Restore the Republic
Scott Bradley


Keep the Spirit Alive and Well!
Learn to think like the Founders and pass it on!


 Scott Bradley Explains

10) National Debt
The Founding Fathers of the United States considered a national debt to be a great burden that was to be avoided and resolved with the greatest of diligence. They considered it to be a bane to the liberty of the Nation, and counseled most emphatically that the Nation guard against it.

In his annual State of the Union reports to Congress, George Washington spoke often of the burden of national debt. Thomas Jefferson devoted a great deal of time in each of his annual State of the Union reports to reviews of the Nation’s efforts to retire the national debt. The efforts to accomplish that were largely based upon sale of federal lands to citizens of the United States (only). This accomplished at least two great goals: It placed within the power of the people the means to produce prosperity for themselves and the Nation, and it removed the debt which burdened the Nation. In this we may see an example of the "original intent" of the Founding Fathers.

It is interesting to note that the last time the Nation was completely debt-free was during the Andrew Jackson Administration, and that was achieved through the sale of federally-held land.

George Washington on Debt

Washington felt that the national debt should be paid without delay, saying:

"I entertain a strong hope that the state of the national finances is now sufficiently matured to enable you to enter upon a systematic and effectual arrangement for the regular redemption and discharge of the public debt, according to the right which has been reserved to the government. No measure can be more desirable, whether viewed with an eye to its intrinsic importance or to the general sentiment and wish of the nation." [Fourth Annual Address to Congress. Fitzpatrick 32:211. (1792.)]

"No pecuniary consideration is more urgent than the regular redemption and discharge of the public debt; on none can delay be more injurious, or an economy of time more valuable." [Fifth Annual Address to Congress. Fitzpatrick 33:168. (1793.)]

"The time which has elapsed since the commencement of our fiscal measures has developed our pecuniary resources so as to open a way for a definitive plan for the redemption of the public debt. It is believed that the result is such as to encourage Congress to consummate this work without delay. Nothing can more promote the permanent welfare of the nation, and nothing would be more grateful to our constituents. Indeed, whatsoever is unfinished of our system of public credit cannot be benefited by procrastination; and as far as may be practicable, we ought to place that credit on grounds which cannot be disturbed, and to prevent that progressive accumulation of debt which must ultimately endanger all governments." [Sixth Annual Address to Congress. Fitzpatrick 34:36. (1794.)]

"It will afford me heartfelt satisfaction to concur in such further measures as will ascertain to our country the prospect of a speedy extinguishment of the debt. Posterity may have cause to regret if, from any motive, intervals of tranquility are left unimproved for accelerating this valuable end." [Eighth Annual Address to Congress. Fitzpatrick 35:319. (1796.)]

Washington also advised that the Nation avoid national debt when possible, and quickly repay it when incurred:

"As a very important source of strength and security, cherish public credit. One method of preserving it is to use it as sparingly as possible, avoiding occasions of expense by cultivating peace, but remembering also that timely disbursements to prepare for danger frequently prevent much greater disbursements to repel it; avoiding likewise the accumulation of debt, not only by shunning occasions of expense, but by vigorous exertions in time of peace to discharge the debts which unavoidable wars may have occasioned, not ungenerously throwing upon posterity the burden which we ourselves ought to bear." [Farewell Address. Fitzpatrick 35:230. (1796.)]

Thomas Jefferson on Debt

Thomas Jefferson was no less emphatic in his resolve to extinguish public debt, saying:

"I…place economy among the first and most important of republican virtues, and public debt as the greatest of the dangers to be feared." [Bergh 15:47. (1816.)]

"I am for…applying all the possible savings of the public revenue to the discharge of the national debt." [To Elbridge Gerry. Bergh 10:77. (1799.)]

"I consider the fortunes of our republic as depending, in an eminent degree, on the extinguishment of the public debt before we engage in any war; because, that done, we shall have revenue enough to improve our country in peace and defend it in war, without recurring either to new taxes or loans. But if the debt should once more be swelled to a formidable size, its entire discharge will be despaired of, and we shall be committed to the English career of debt, corruption, and rottenness, closing with revolution. The discharge of the debt, therefore, is vital to the destinies of our government." [To Albert Gailatin. Bergh 12:324. (1809.)]

"The principle of spending money to be paid by posterity, under the name of funding, is but swindling futurity on a large scale." [Bergh 15:23. (1816.)]

It is tragic to note how the Nation in recent decades has strayed from the sound counsel of those who founded this great Nation. The chart below captures the essence of the matter by equating the national debt to the burden upon each man, woman, and child in the United States:

Year National Debt Population Per Capita Debt
1800 $82,976,294.00 5,309,000 $15.63
*1913
1980 $930,200,000,000.00 226,542,199 $4,106.08
2006 $9,000,000,000,000.00 298,000,000 $30,200.00
*1913 The 16th Amendment (income tax) ratified,
17th Amendment (direct election of U.S. Senators) ratified,
Federal Reserve established

Today’s politicians have buried the Nation in debt. They have done this by ignoring the constitutional limits of their power, acting as though they have power to tax and spend for any whim that strikes them. They tax trillions of hard-earned dollars each year from the citizens of this land, only to spend hundreds of billions more each year than they collect. Sadly, most of the spending is not authorized by the United States Constitution.

The solution is a return to the constraints of power on the federal government which exist within the United States Constitution. James Madison stated that the powers of the national government were "few and well defined." Perhaps, when the people of the Nation again understand that fact, the Nation’s leadership will be compelled to abide by their oath to uphold the Constitution of the United States.

Scott N. Bradley
top of pagetop
11) Treaty-Making Power
In regards to treaties, the United States Constitution makes the following stipulations:

“No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation;...” (Article I, Section 10)

“He [the President] shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; ...” (Article 2, Section 2)


“The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their authority;—to all cases affecting...” [the Section goes on to enumerate the scope of the power granted]. (Article III, Section 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;...” (Article VI)

In 1803, St. George Tucker, one of the preeminent constitutional scholars of the founding era of the United States, published his monumental work: View of the Constitution of the United States. In that volume, he painstakingly reviews the form of government created by the United States Constitution, the powers granted within that document, and the scope and limits within which each component of the government is to operate. In his writings, Tucker briefly touches upon the exercise of the treaty-making power, an area wherein the United States has strayed into dangerous territory in recent decades.

The danger lies in the false perception that by the power to make treaties, the Constitution can be modified or amended. This recent “interpretation” is that simply by having the President agree to, and the Senate ratify treaties with other nations (as required in Articles II and VI of the United States Constitution), the United States Constitution may be modified as though it had been amended by the process defined in Article V of the Constitution. Tucker is careful to note that such a position is wholly inconsistent with the intent and purposes specified within the Constitution, and that such a position or action would subvert and completely destroy the deliberative amendment process which is outlined in Article V of the Constitution.

Article V states that amendments to the Constitution occur when two thirds of both Houses of Congress have agreed on a proposed amendment, and three fourths of all States agree to those changes. Thereby, Congress may not change the Constitution without the concurrence of the people.

One of the prime foundational principles of the American experiment is found in the Declaration of Independence (“...it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish” their government) , and the people would be left out of any constitutional modification if it were allowed to occur with actions taken solely by the President and the Senate. George Washington touched upon this issue in his monumental Farewell Address, saying:

“This Government, the offspring of our own choice, uninfluenced and unawed, adopted upon full investigation and mature deliberation, completely free in its principles, in the distribution of its powers, uniting security with energy, and containing within itself a provision for its own amendment, has a just claim to your confidence and your support. Respect for its authority, compliance with its laws, acquiescence in its measures, are duties enjoined by the fundamental maxims of true liberty. The basis of our political systems is the right of the people to make and to alter their constitutions of government. But the constitution which at any time exists till changed by an explicit and authentic act of the whole people is sacredly obligatory upon all. The very idea of the power and the right of the people to establish government presupposes the duty of every individual to obey the established government....

If in the opinion of the people the distribution or modification of the constitutional powers be in any particular wrong, let it be corrected by an amendment in the way which the Constitution designates. But let there be no change by usurpation; for though this in one instance may be the instrument of good, it is the customary weapon by which free governments are destroyed. The precedent must always greatly overbalance in permanent evil any partial or transient benefit which the use can at any time yield.” (Washington’s Farewell Address, September 17, 1796. Messages and Papers of the Presidents, George Washington, Vol 1, Pg.205-216)

Tucker quotes a contemporary congressional resolution pertaining to the treaty making power of the President and Senate which notes their reservations to treaties which go beyond their view of the constitutional scope, and which would appear to require constraint :

“That when a treaty stipulates regulations on any of the subjects submitted by the Constitution to the power of Congress, it must depend for its execution, as to such stipulations, on a law or laws to be passed by Congress; and it is the constitutional right and duty of the House of Representatives, in all such cases, to deliberate on the expediency, or inexpediency, of carrying such treaty into effect, and to determine and act thereon, as in their judgment, may be most conducive to the public good.” (Resolution of the House of Representatives, April 6, 1796, Tucker, View Pg 277)

Tucker proceeds to note the impeccable logic of such a congressional position:

“. . .A contrary construction would render the power of the President and Senate paramount to that of the whole Congress, even upon those subjects upon which every branch of Congress is, by the Constitution, required to deliberate. Let it be supposed, for example, that the President and Senate should stipulate by treaty with any foreign nation, that in case of war between that nation and any other, the United States should immediately declare against that nation: Can it be supposed that such a treaty would be so far the law of the land, as to take from the House of Representatives their constitutional right to deliberate on the expediency or inexpediency of such a declaration of war, and to determine and act thereon, according to their own judgment?” (Tucker, View Pg. 277)

It would seem today that Tucker’s prediction of the Nation being drawn into war without adhering to the Constitutional requirement of a congressional declaration of war was almost prophetic—in view of the numerous modern instances of that mantra being the national justification in so momentous a matter!

More succinctly, Thomas Jefferson makes the point:

“By the general power to make treaties, the Constitution must have intended to comprehend only those objects which are usually regulated by treaty and cannot be otherwise regulated.…It must have meant to except out of these the rights reserved to the states, for surely the President and Senate cannot do by treaty what the whole government is interdicted from doing in any way.” (Thomas Jefferson, Writings of Thomas Jefferson. Manual of Parliamentary Practice. Bergh 2:442. [1801])

Jefferson felt that the Constitution must be strictly held to the words written in the document:

“Our peculiar security is in the possession of a written Constitution. Let us not make it a blank paper by construction.

I say the same as to the opinion of those who consider the grant of the treaty-making power as boundless. If it is, then we have no Constitution. If it has bounds, they can be no others than the definitions of the powers which that instrument gives. It specifies and delineates the operations permitted to the federal government, and gives all the powers necessary to carry these into execution. Whatever of these enumerated objects is proper for a law, Congress may make the law; whatever is proper to be executed by way of a treaty, the President and Senate may enter into the treaty; whatever is to be done by a judicial sentence, the judges may pass the sentence.” (Thomas Jefferson, Writings of Thomas Jefferson, Bergh 10:418-419. [1803])

As he debated the treaty making power which was granted to the President and Senate as found in the Constitution, James Madison addressed the logical limits to the treaty making power, and made this statement:

“Does it follow, because this power is given to Congress, that it is absolute and unlimited? I do not conceive that power is given to the President and Senate to dismember the empire, or to alienate any great, essential right. I do not think the whole legislative authority have this power. The exercise of the power must be consistent with the object of the delegation.” (James Madison, Jonathan Elliot, Debates on the Adoption of the Federal Constitution, Vol. 3, p.514)

The Founding Fathers of this Nation unquestionably felt that the power to make treaties did not embrace the power to modify the Constitution. In their view, the treaty-making power was a limited grant of power that could not undermine or destroy individual God-given rights, or the structure or framework of the limited, carefully defined government they established.

It is astonishing that in recent decades efforts to destroy the sovereignty of the Nation and the United States Constitution have been undertaken through the treaty process; and those efforts have been expanded through “Executive Agreements” which the President makes with foreign powers, and with “trade agreements” such as NAFTA, GATT, WTO, CAFTA which are not treaties (and which would have never passed the Senate by the required two-thirds vote had they been presented as treaties). None of these methods can modify the United States Constitution in any way, shape or form, but they are treated by those in power as having done so. Tragedy will follow if the Nation continues along this path.

The current false philosophy regarding treaty power, as promoted by those who would usurp authority within this Nation, will lead to the destruction of the United States Constitution and result in the loss of our liberty if the citizens of this Nation are not willing to expose and derail these attempts. Authority is not granted within the Constitution to de-construct the Constitutional authority of the land by treaty.

Scott N. Bradley

top of pagetop
12) Courts
The United States Constitution defines the scope and purpose of the judicial system it created. As with all other aspects of the government the founders of this Nation framed, there were "checks and balances" established to assure that the court system did not usurp power and destroy the liberty of the Nation.

Article I, Section 8, clause 9 states:

"Congress shall have power... To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court;..."

Article III of the Constitution creates "one supreme Court," and reiterates that Congress has the authority to create lower courts, saying:

"...such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish." (Article III, Section I, clause 1)

In recent modern times, the Executive Branch has ignored the constitutional stipulation that only Congress may create courts or "tribunals," and claimed to establish courts for various purposes. No authority is granted within the Constitution for such action, and Congress is remiss if it fails to aggressively act within its constitutional prerogative to preempt such usurpation.

Article III of the Constitution defines the scope and power of the United States supreme Court, noting specific cases in which the Court has "original jurisdiction." Within the scope specifically defined within the Constitution, the supreme Court can not be denied authority to act. However, the authors of the United States Constitution placed "checks and balances" within the Constitution on the Court. Certainly Article III, Section 2 Clause 2 of the United States Constitution defines a "check and balance" which was created to prevent the court system from usurping power. It states specifically:

"In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make."

Regardless of opinions to the contrary, the United States Constitution actually states: "...with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make." We often speak of the "checks and balances" that were so wisely written into the document to prevent power from being consolidated into tyranny, but almost no one recognizes this "check" which may be exercised to balance against a usurping court.

And, of course, as previously noted, the Constitution delegates to the Congress authority over the existence of all federal courts inferior to the Supreme Court (see Article I Section 8 clause 9 and Article III Section 1). While Article III Section 2 of the United States Constitution delegates specific authority for Supreme Court involvement in certain specified instances, it seems certain that in cases not specifically enumerated within the Constitution that the United States Congress has the authority to rein in the rogue court system which currently exists by simple majority vote in both the House and Senate. By exercising this rarely-used authority, the United States Congress could remove specific cases from the purview of the federal court system if the federal court system began to usurp authority in those cases.

An example of how this could be accomplished is found in the 1868 Exparte McCardle case, which was taken to the Supreme Court by an individual seeking relief from an onerous act of Congress (but which act Congress had, under authority of Article III Section 2 clause 2, prohibited from being reviewed by the Supreme Court). Following is the relevant excerpt from the declaration the Supreme Court made when McCardle sought to bring the case to them for redress:

"We are not at liberty to inquire into the motives of the legislature.
We can only examine into its power under the Constitution; and the power to
make exceptions to the appellate jurisdiction of this court is given by
express words.... It is quite clear, therefore, that this court cannot proceed
to pronounce judgment in this case, for it has no longer jurisdiction of
the appeal; and judicial duty is not less fitly performed by declining
ungranted jurisdiction than in exercising firmly that which the Constitution and
the laws confer."

The irony is that this unanimous 1868 Supreme Court decision is a good decision upholding a perfectly repellent act of Congress.

While this approach has been rarely used, and some would deny that the authority of Congress to act in such a manner is granted within the Constitution, it is there for all to read, and only awaits a courageous Congress to act upon it.

And in spite of contrary opinions, not only has Article III, Section 2, clause 2 been successfully applied in the past by the United States Congress, it may easily be applied today if Congress could be brought to exercise it by the outcry of an informed electorate. Following is a generically-worded resolution which could be used as a template suggesting how such an act may be worded in the required instances.

Possible Wording of Congressional Act Which Would Remove Cases From the Jurisdiction of Federal Courts:

"The appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court and the jurisdictions of the inferior federal courts shall not extend to hearing or determining the power of a state to (Insert the issue or subject which is to be prevented from being reviewed by the federal court system—such as same-sex marriage, abortion, flag burning, educational issues, etc., etc.). Such jurisdictions shall not extend to hearing nor determining the refusal of any state to give full faith and credit to any act regarding (Insert issue or subject) under the law of any other state."

This approach applies the U.S. Constitution "in the tradition of the Founding Fathers." It recognizes and applies the Congressional authority over the courts as allowed and found in Article I Section 8 clause 9, Article III Section 2 clause 2, and Article IV Section 1.

No "Full Faith and Credit" complaints could be taken to the federal courts, and the power to encroach into these matters would be kept out of the hands of the federal government. Each State would be responsible within their own realm before God for their actions.

Scott N. Bradley
top of pagetop
"Turn To The Constitution" newsletter is dedicated to Preserving Liberty and Freedom Our Mission