The War Nobody Saw Coming – The Plan

INTRODUCTION:

As the holiday season is in full swing, Patriots cringe as we watch the American Communists and those who want to destroy the American way of life crawl out from under their rocks and once again begin their ongoing war on religion and escalated it to the all out  “War on Christmas” (again).

Just as predictably many talking heads showed up on talk shows, some have written books or are there to hawk their past published books.

Others are just there to complain and yet give no rhyme or reason of why the war goes on with no apparent end in sight.

Some. not many, will even cite Karl Marx;

"Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, and the soul of soulless conditions. It is the opium of the people".

While others might cite the idea that the American Communists do not want people to believe that there is anything more important then the "State" (In this context, Centralized Government)

If people stop and really think, both are considered correct by those wishing to destroy the American way of life.

Like a number of wars throughout history, the how or the why they started gets lost in time.

What if someone were to say that the war on religion, thus the War on Christmas, began in Italy ca. 1920's. I'll bet that people would call that person nuts.

"Hello." You can call me nuts.

Since 2008, the names of Marx, Engels, Lenin, Antonio Gramsci and Saul Alinsky have become common names in debates about the ongoing destruction of the America way of life. I can imagine people reading the list, nodding and then all of a sudden, stop and say, “WHO is Antonio Gramsci and what does he have to do with the destruction of America?”

Everyone knows who Karl Marx is, but few people will even mention Marx's "comrade in arms" Friedrick Engels (1820-1895), both were the “great scientists” that laid the foundations of “scientific socialism” [1] in Manifestoof the Communist Party and “were the first to explain that socialism was not the invention of Utopian dreamers, but the inevitable outcome of the workings of modern capitalist society”.[2] Considering that Friedrick Engels DID say in the Preface of the 1888 edition of the Manifesto, “Yet, when it (Manifesto of the Communist Party [sic]) was written, we could not have called it a socialist manifesto. By Socialists, in 1847, were understood, on the one hand the adherents of the various Utopian systems:....”.

However, few know that after the publication of the Manifesto and the defeats suffered by the Socialists during the Revolution(s) of 1848, different ideas developed on how to implement Marx's ideas into society.

 Just as today, where there is a division within the Democrat Party between the few so called “moderates” (what was once known as Blue Dog Democrats) and the Liberal/Socialist/Occupy Wall Street/Black Lives Matter Democrats, a division between the three philosophies of Marxist Socialists also developed.

The “Revisionist” socialists were those who promoted gradual reform by using compromise, the democratic process and non violence to achieve the nationalism of state and local public works and large-scale industries. Does this sound like the Fabian Society of Great Britain and America and the modern day Progressives or in reality the American Communists.

Then there were "Anarchic” socialists who believed that both the state and private property should be abolished and society would be composed of small collectives of producers, distributors and consumers. This is similar to the system in France where industries are owned and managed by the workers. Or more locally, your neighborhood farmers CO-OP.

Finally and very well known and often cited, the “Bolshevist” socialists, those that believed in using revolutionary (violent) tactics to raise the conscious of the working class (proletariat) in order to advance socialism through an absolute dictatorship[4] much like the unions and Occupy Wall Street of today.

It is this group who would eventually be the symbol of Communism, though if one were to read Marx's Manifesto, no where does the word "government" appear.

These differences would come to the world's attention in 1917 when Vladimir Ilyich Ulyanov aka Vladimir Ilyich Lenin (1870-1924) along with Leon Trotsky lead the Bolshevik Revolution that overthrew the Tzar of Russia.

This revolution not only established what we, today call Communism but also separated the Revisionist's idea of peaceful social revolution as envisioned by Marx and Engels [4] and the Bolshevik's theory of armed conflict to overcome the injustices of the capitalistic economic system[5]. This revolution not only caused a split within the American Socialist Party but also a split between the international socialists and one of the leaders in the theory of the “peaceful” change was Antonio Gramsci.

Gramsci believed that capitalism was so firmly entrenched that violent revolution would only serve to further strengthen the Bourgeoisie (modern capitalists, owners of means social production and employers of the Proletariat, wage laborers) resolve to maintain “control”.

Antonio Gramsci was born January 22, 1891 on the island of Sardinia,Italy and would grow to be considered a leading Italian Marxist as well as a major theorist.

Gramsci's belief in Marxism along with his membership plus his actions as a leader of the Italian Communist Party brought him into direct conflict with Benito Mussolini's Fascist regime. This conflict would cumulate in 1926 when he was arrested and sentenced to five years in prison. This five year sentence would eventually become twenty five years when a year later he was transferred to another prison and an additional twenty years imprisonment was added to his sentence. It was during his imprisonment that Gramsci wrote the Prison Notebooks. It is within the pages of these notebooks that, I feel the foundation of the war on religion and the “War on Christmas” and the peaceful destruction of the America way of life was laid.

Cultural Hegemony

Although no translation of Gramsci's Notebooks actually gives a black and white definition of Cultural Hegemony, his often quoted characterization of hegemony as “the 'spontaneous' consent given by the great masses of the population to the general direction imposed on social life by the dominant fundamental group; this consent is 'historically' caused by the prestige which the dominant groups enjoys because of its position and function in the world of production” In other words, the ruling group(s) uses its political, moral and intellectual leadership[6] to impose the direction of social life (culture) whether it be religion, the family or the basic traditions.

Gramsci felt that in order to bring about the defeat of capitalism, it would be necessary for the proletariat to develop a counter-hegemony (counter culture) and bring this counter culture to institutions such as schools and colleges, the churches, charities, media, and most importantly, the Family.

America and the free world has faced and to some extent defeated armed aggressors out to destroy free societies. BUT, cultural hegemony is the saboteur who quietly infiltrates and slowly works to destroy a society from within. Unlike an enemy with a weapon that can be stopped with equal or superior force, those seeking the destruction of traditions can be everyone, because everyone is part of the culture.

As the old Pogo cartoon said, “We have met the enemy and he is us”

Continued in "The War Nobody Saw Coming - The First Attack"

[1] Foster, William, History of the Communist Party of the United States, International Publishers, 1952.

[2] Iliad Foster, William, Chapter 2.
[3] “The social revolution originally envisioned by Marx and Engels would begin witha proletariat dictatorship. Once in possession of the means of production, the dictatorship would devise the means for society to achieve the communal ownership of wealth. Once the transitional period had stabilized the state, the purest form of communism would take shape. Communism in its purest form would be a classless societal system in which property and wealth were distributed equally and without the need for a coercive government.” 
[4] Russell, Bertrand, The Practice and Theory of Bolshevism, George Allen & Unwin Ltd., London, 1920.
[5] Gramsci, Selections from the prison Notebooks, Translated and edited by Quentin Hoare and Geoffrey Norwell Smith, New York, 1971. In T.J. Jackson Lears' The Concept of Cultural Hegemony: Problems and Possibilities, The American Historical Review, Vol. 90, Issue 3, pages 567-593, June, 1985.
[6] Moraes, Raquel de Almeida, University of Brazil, Encyclopedia of Philosophy of Education.

Let me know what you think.

The War Nobody Saw Coming – The First Attack

 In “The War Nobody Saw Coming – The Plan”, I introduced you to Antonio Gramsci and his theory of Cultural Hegemony and how by changing the culture, a group of could subvert a capitalist society by changing it’s tradition and thus the culture instead of using forceful revolution as proposed by Lenin. I could spend more time and countless words on attempting to explain, “How 'small' groups of socialists could change the traditions and thus change the culture and eventually push America further towards Socialism” Instead of me writing a number of words, let's let a number of pictures take the place of a thousand words. Afterward we will take a closer look at opening skirmishes AND what would be the foundation for the attack on our culture, our religious traditions and as we know it, the War on Christmas.

Welcome back, now we're ready to look at the what has happened since Gramsci's theory of 'cultural hegemony' was published in his Prison Notebooks, particularly when it comes to the war on religion in general and Christmas in particular.

Most Patriots and some sheeple know that the first amendment of the Constitution guarantees that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise there of....” (The Establishment Clause) and the fourteenth amendment, "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States (springing from National citizenship [sic.]); nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty or property without due process of law (of the State [sic.]); nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws (of the State [sic])” (Due Process).

It was the twisting of these two amendments plus a letter written by Thomas Jefferson to the Danbury Baptists that would give and continues to give those wanting to change America the ammunition for the Supreme Court (SCOTUS) to destroy one of the primary principles and traditions behind the founding of America.

When asked when the war on religion began, many will say, “1963, when the SCOTUS ruled in Abington Township School District v. Schempp (Reading of the Bible in public schools) which was joined by Murray v. Curlett (School prayer) were unconstitutional. Very few people know of or even want to mention the first two major skirmishes, the opening shots if you will, of the war on American culture that occurred earlier in 1947, when Everson v. Board of Education of Ewing Township. et. al was argued before SCOTUS. This was followed a year later in 1948 with McColhum v. Board of Education of School District No. 71.

Everson v. Board of Education of Ewing Township. et. Al (1947)

Background: A state of New Jersey statute authorized the various school districts to make rules and contracts for the transportation of students to and from schools. This state statute allowed the township of Ewing to reimburse parents for public transportation of their children to both public and private schools (most private schools at this time were Parochial...OM). Arch R. Everson, executive vice president of a group called the State Taxpayers Association of New Jersey brought suit in state court because he believed that the money collected for public education was being used to support students attending schools which provide religious education on behalf of a particular religion and thus violated the Establishment clause. The state court ruled that the reimbursement plan WAS unconstitutional, but the verdict was overturned by the state Court of Errors and Appeals, thus it ended up at the SCOTUS.

The Arguments The ACLU joined Everson's side as “Friend of the court” (amicus curiae) argued that the Establishment Clause prohibited a STATE from establishing an official religion and the use of tax money to transport students to parochial schools was a tacit endorsement of religious education. The attorneys for the Board of Education argued that in addition to prohibiting the establishment of a State religion, the First Amendment also prohibits actions which prevent the free exercise of religion, thus by withholding the assistance to the parents would discriminate against the parents of parochial school students and thereby violate the Free Exercise Clause.

The Decision and Rationale The SCOTUS upheld the New Jersey's State Court of Errors and Appeals by a five to four majority. Justice Black writing for the majority that the expenditure of tax funds to pay for the busing of parochial school students does not violate The Establishment Clause, because it does not unduly assist any school, whether public or parochial. Neither does it violate Due Process no more then the concept of using tax funds for the payment of police and fire who are paid from tax funds to protect both public and parochial students. Basically, “... state cannot tax A to reimburse B for the cost of transporting his children to church schools. This is said to violate the due process clause because the children are sent to these church schools to satisfy the personal desires of their parents, rather than the public's interest in the general education of all children. This argument, if valid, would apply equally to prohibit state payment for the transportation of children to any nonpublic school, whether operated by a church or any other non government individual or group.”

McCollum v. Board of Education (1948)

Background This case revolved around the fact that board of education allowed public school buildings to to be used by various religious groups to give religious instruction once each week. The children who didn't participate were forced to go elsewhere in the school for secular studies, but they were not actually given any regular academic instruction because this would have put them ahead of their religious counterparts. Attendance in religious classes was recorded and reported to teachers, as was the non-participation of non-religious students. The mother of one student, Vashti McCollum, an atheist who would write about the case in 1953 and would later in 1962 became the president of the American Humanist Association, complained that the program of providing religious instruction in schools violated the Establishment Clause. McCollum also complained that the school district's religious education classes violated the Fourteenth amendment, specifically the Equal Protection Clause.

The Arguments Once again the ACLU joined the case as amicus curiae along with the American Unitarian Association, Synagogue Council ofAmerica, General Conference of Seventh-day Adventists and the BaptistJoint Committee of Religious Liberty also filed briefs that argued McCollum's position. The Board of Education argued that the Champaign Council on Religious Education, a group of Jewish, Roman Catholic, and a few of the Protestant faiths, had obtained permission from the Board of Education to offer classes in religious instruction to public school pupils in grades four to nine, inclusive. The parents had signed printed cards that gave permission for their children requesting that their children be permitted to attend. These classes were held weekly, thirty minutes for the lower grades, forty-five minutes for the higher. The council employed the religious teachers at no expenseto the school authorities, but the instructors were subject to the approval and supervision of the superintendent of schools. The classes were taught in three separate religious groups by Protestant teachers, Catholic priests, and a Jewish rabbi, although at the time there had apparently been no classes instructed in the Jewish religion. The classes were conducted in the regular classrooms of the school building.

The Decision and Rationale

In an 8 to 1 majority ruled in favor of McCollum and the ACLU. The court ruled that by allowing:

(1) the use of taxed – established and tax supported public schools to teach religion to students, the government aided these groups in the spreading their faith.

(2) As Justice Black wrote in his majority opinion, “Pupils compelled by law to go to school for secular education are released in part from their legal duty upon the condition that they attend the religious classes. This is beyond all question a utilization of the tax-established and tax-supported public school system to aid religious groups to spread their faith. ...Here not only are the State's tax supported public school buildings used for the dissemination of religious doctrines. The State also affords sectarian groups an invaluable aid in that it helps to provide pupils for their religious classes through use of the State's compulsory public school machinery. This is not separation of Church and State”

With this decision the skirmish that began with Everson in 1947 would eventually become a war on religion beginning in the public schools and expanding to any tax supported property. This case not only held that the Establishment Clause (1^st Amend.) applied to the states through Due Process (14^th Amend.) but would further entrench the “...building a wall of separation between Church and State.”

I fully realize that these cases may not mean much to some nor will they make the connection to what is happening today, but I will ask you to consider the following.

No matter how hard the Socialists/Left tries to deny or try to rewrite history, America was founded on one simple principle (tradition if you will), FREEDOM OF RELIGION, not freedom from religion.

It is this FREEDOM that has been the cornerstone that has guided families, as well as the majority of Americans throughout our history. Yes, there were times that some used religion for dubious ambitions, but as a people, we learn, and in most cases when discovered it got and still gets corrected by the people and in some cases, unfortunately, the Federal Government.

Just as religion is the cornerstone of American society, education is the foundation.

As Attilito Monasta wrote in his biography of Antonio Gramsci, “Education is a field where theory and practice, culture and politics inevitably merge together, and where intellectual research and achievement combine with social and political action. However, a distinction, if not an opposition, between these two aspects of education is not uncommon and the ideological use of culture and science often pushes toward both the ‘neutralization’ of the educational and political effects of cultural development and the ‘justification’ of the political power by domesticated theories, which, therefore, can be defined as ‘ideologies’. It is difficult, within the traditional division and separation of disciplines and fields of cultural research, to define all of that ‘education’, since education is consistently related to the growth of children and the schooling of pupils, no matter whether from  nursery school or university.[1]

Now,as people listen to the talking heads, out to make a buck on the “culture war” and the War on Christmas, I will ask people to look back over “recent” history and remember that as Antonio Gramsci wrote and the film clip explained, “that by infiltrating and destroying or corrupting the traditions of a society, in this case, America, one can successfully destroy the greatest country in the world.

As Rand Paul said, "Just because a majority of the Supreme Court declares something to be ' Constitutional' does not make it so."

Continued in,YOU guessed it, "Just Because the SCOTUS Declares Something to be 'Constitutional' Does Not Make It So"

[1] Prospects: the quarterly review of comparative education (Paris, UNESCO: International Bureau of Education), vol. XXIII, no. ©UNESCO: International Bureau of Education, 2000

Just Because the SCOTUS Declares Something to be 'Constitutional' Does Not Make It So*

In “The War No One Saw Coming- The Plan”, I introduced people to Antonio Gramsci and his theory of Cultural Hegemony and how according to him, the culture (traditions) of a society are determined by the “ruling” Bourgeois (the “one percent”) and if the Proletarians (the “ninety-nine percent”) can infiltrate and change those tradition, thus changing the culture, it will be bring down a capitalist society.

 In “The War Nobody Saw Coming- The First Attacks” I attempted to showed that the opening salvos of the “culture” wars were two cases that were argued before the Supreme Court (SCOTUS). The first, Everson v. Board of Education of Ewing Township (1947), could be considered a victory for the American way of life. However, we all know that one victory does not win a war and unfortunately a year later (1948), McCollum v. Board of Education, the SCOTUS handed the enemies of the American traditions and religion a victory by expanding the “...Constitution beyond its letter and spirit through judicial legislation...”[1]

In both of these opening skirmishes in the war of Religion and which in turn would lead to a full assault on the war on Christmas and now traditional marriage. The SCOTUS and lower courts have basically held that the word “liberty” (“The power of doing that which is permitted by the law”) in the 14^th amendment, written for the STATES, was/is the same as the word “freedom” (The power to live as one wishes) written in the 1^st amendment for the NATIONAL government.

In making this interpretation SCOTUS basically ignored two cardinal rules: (1) that plain language must be followed, without addition or subtraction; and (2) that it must be kept in mind the evil which the writing was being made to cure.[2]

To begin with, the 14^th makes absolutely NO MENTION of the freedom. Therefore, those guaranteed rights laid out in the 1^st amendment should not have been be drawn into or be construed as part of the 14^th by expanding the meaning of the word liberty.

Second, when the 14^th was written the authors were dealing only with the citizenship of newly freed slaves and the protection of their liberty and their prospective rights. Once again, freedom of religion, speech and Press were far from their thoughts.[3]. This amendment not only made them a citizen of the United States but also made them a citizen of the State of their residence. It also struck the word "white" from the constitutions of northern States which had limited citizenship to white males, thus in both the North and South the Negro gained all the rights of citizenship [4].

The First Amendment on Religion

Let's remember EXACTLY why the Bill of Rights was purposed by looking at the Preamble of the resolutions that were sent to the states, “The Conventions of a number of the States having, at the Time of their Adopting the Constitution, expressed a Desire, in Order to prevent Misconstruction or Abuse of its Powers, that further declaratory and restrictive Clauses should be added (emphasis added...OM): And as exceeding the Ground of public Confidence in the Government will best insure the beneficent Ends of its Institution.”

"Congress shall make no Law respecting the Establishment of Religion, or prohibiting the free Exercise thereof;..." This is one phase that EVERYONE should read very carefully for it contradicts the phase that is commonly accepted, “...no law respecting an Establishment of Religion..” and the key word in the original wording, “the”, which is a more declaratory and restrictive word than “an” as commonly read in the reprinting of the Bill of Rights today.

The 1^st amendment says that CONGRESS, therefore the Federal Government, shall make NO laws that will establish a national religion (church) nor could it levy taxes for said established church or religion. It safeguarded the STATES and the PEOPLE from the Federal government denying or interfering with the freedoms of Religion, speech and Press. 

Since the Bill of Rights was written and passed by the STATES to guarantee their rights as INDIVIDUAL states, why should SCOTUS take authority to use the 1^st Amendment of the STATES' Bill of Rights against them?

The Fourteenth Amendment on Religion

“All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.” This amendment set aside the idea that a citizen of a state was not in contact with the national government under the theory of States rights because it was supposed that he owed his allegiance to the state and the state dealt with the Nation.

The first SCOTUS case didn't deal with the newly freed slaves, but from rival businesses where the challenge was that the 14^th supplanted former State citizenship which would mean that the National Government was to be the source of all the rights which belong to the citizens of all free governments by virtue of their manhood, and for the protection (not creation) of which all just governments are formed. The Supreme Court rejected (1873) this contention and said that the Amendment did not disclose "any purpose to destroy the main features of the general system." It held that the command that "no State shall . . . abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States" and does not prevent a State from abridging privileges of State citizenship as distinguished from privileges of National citizenship. This momentous decision preserved State citizenship and State rights.

“No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States;...” The SCOTUS held that this meant, just as the language says, “the privileges and immunities of National citizenship and not to include those belonging to the citizen of the State. It is a prohibition, not respecting action by an individual or by a group of individuals, but only action by the legislative, the executive, or the judicial department of a State government.” Basically, fundamental state rights which are protected by the Bill of Rights is to prevent the Federal Government from “invading” a state.

Basically, this amendment prevented the NATIONAL (FEDERAL) government from entering a STATE except to enforce a right of NATIONAL citizenship.

 “...nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law;” This is an oft cited statement in the SCOTUS and other courts in the war of religion.

Just as the 5^th amendment in the Bill of Rights was written as a guard against a tyrannical Federal Government. The 14^th was written to guard against a tyrannical STATE and the writers copied the language from the 5^th and as previously stated, “that plain language must be followed, without addition or subtraction”, so if the language is borrowed, it must mean exactly the same thing. Therefore, IF the “liberty” in the 5^th did not mean the same as “freedom” of the 1^st , then how could (can) the courts embrace the idea that “liberty” as written in the 5^th and was borrowed and inserted in the 14^th be the same as “freedom” written in the 1^st ? Therefore, “liberty” in this amendment safeguards a person from unjust or unlawful imprisonment by the STATE, just as the 5^th amendment curtails the FEDERAL government.

As the SCOTUS said in 1908, due process of law means "no change in ancient procedure can be made which disregards those fundamental principles... which... protect the citizen in his private right and guard him against the arbitrary action of the government." 

Again, this amendment prevents the FEDERAL government from entering a STATE in order to protect, “life, liberty, or property” UNLESS the STATE denies its due process in protection of rights springing from NATIONAL (not State) citizenship.

 “...nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws"

Article IV, Section 2 of the Constitution states, "the citizens of each State shall be entitled to all the privileges and immunities of citizens in the several States." In other words, a citizen of one State doing business in another State cannot be denied the privileges and immunities of the citizens of that State.

This clause in 14^th was designed to prevent a State from discriminating between its own citizens and those of another state. As with the writing/ratification of this amendment, it was written primarily for the liberated slaves (although not mentioned specifically in this Amendment) and the language was without limitation, extending to "any person". Unfortunately this has been applied in upwards of a thousands cases in State and National courts to every perceived form of inequality alleged to arise out of the laws of States.

For example when Congress passed a law that fixed a punishment for three or more persons conspiring to deprive another of the equal protection of the laws was held invalid by the Supreme Court (1883) because the 14^th is a limitation upon the State and not upon persons. The word "persons" also includes a resident alien or a corporation. (Thus according to this case much to the left's dismay, CORPORATIONS are PERSONS, therefore a Corporation is a person = people...OM)

The language and design of this clause was "to prevent any person or class of persons from being singled out as a special subject for discriminating and hostile legislation." It also means that the FEDERAL government cannot enter a STATE to secure “the equal protection of the laws” of that STATE unless the laws being enforced are to deny the rights of NATIONAL (not State) citizenship.

 As shown there is nothing in the language of the 14^th Amendment written in 1866 that gives any indication or intention of the authors to rewrite or change the meaning of the 1^st amendment written in 1789 to read, "Congress shall make no law [nor shall any State] respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.". Therefore, NOTHING in the 14^th that should make the word “liberty” written after Emancipation to mean “free” exercise of religion, or the “freedom of speech, or of the Press,” dealt with by the writers of the 1^st amendment seventy-seven years earlier.

Where in the Constitution do the courts have the authority to blend the 14^th Amendment into the 1^st Amendment? If there is be a mingling of the two amendments, shouldn't it be done by the people exerting sovereign power as the constitution makers and not by the assertions of SCOTUS or the authority of Congress? Why is it that in all the years of litigation and arguments concerning this mingling no one has dared to propose to the States an amendment for their ratification which would emasculate them as has been done by decisions handed down by the SCOTUS?

Why does it seem that there no constitutional concern to the STATES and the people that the SCOTUS, as well as the lower courts, have been very busy over the years, causing great confusion when it comes to our Fundamental Law, the Constitution? Or have the STATES become slaves to the NATIONAL government?

Concluded in "Just Because the SCOTUS Declares Something to be 'Constitutional' Does Not Make It So* - Part 2"

* Senator Rand Paul, Kentucky

[1] Norton, Thomas James, Undermining the Constitution - A History of Lawless Government, Devin-Adair Co., New York, New York, 1951. (Thomas James Norton was a member of the Bars of the Supreme Court of the United States, the United States Circuit Courts of Appeals for the 7th, 8th, and 9th Circuits, and the Supreme Courts of Illinois, Kansas, New Mexico, Arizona, and California.)
[2] Ibid Page 208
[3] Ibid Page 208
[4] Norton, Thomas James, The Constitution of the United States of America, Its Sources and Its Applications. The World Publishing Co., New York, New York. (1940)