Federalism versus Nationalism

[weishaupt1776]

From Clyde:
Charles Warren in his book, "The Making of the Constitution", writes in the form of a true lawyer and obscures the contruction he tried to describe leading to confusion over the subject as some of the group has experienced and of which I did upon first reading, in fact I had to read it over and over again to get the true meaning, thus I have from time to time been rightfully questioned on the matter with the result that it is absolutely known by the very term Federal to be
just federal which can not be questioned.* Although there are actually two governments as proclaimed by that government which acts in the "National" capacity with the rest of the World at large.


The problem we have today is shown openly by the courts as acting in "National" capacity as a taxation entity.* It is a National Tax, the federal income tax is actually a misnomer because in reality it could only exist as a "National Income Tax" which could only be subjected upon aliens without the United States which Larken Rose gives effect to and is right in that relation although he attacks the principle without foundation in law, and without intent of the founders.

Larkens demise is the use of the code itself and not the intent of the founders.* But the tax is called a Federal Income Tax which is a misnomer in the fact that states themselves, who can be the only object of the tax and are only mentioned in the express provision of the 16th Amendment, do not have "income", however they do have the ability to raise a tax to pay the expenses of the Federal Government and thus they had the ability to check that power to spend.
I say they "did", as they effectively lost that power through that 17th Amendment which changed the form of federal government to a*pure democracy by election of senators by the people.* Before this time the Senate was an oligarthy, after a democracy.* Thus making the whole body, contrary to wise and prudent design, a*democracy.* I don't believe that this wasn't foisted upon the nieve people by cleavor design to move the federal more towards the national concept proposed by the "new*plan"*national party in Convention.* In recent days we have seen the fast and furious expantion of National powers such that it is literally reaching out to touch us daily and without remorse or consideration for the destructive nature of such*dictatorial power.*


Anyway, since I read Charles Warren's book, I have been totally struck by the simplicity of the concept and the corruption of the federal government to hide it and foster the national concepts upon the People in the most disgusting offense to the Constitution that could ever be mounted by dictatorial standards of World History.* Adam Weishaupt sent me this case pointed out in his law dictionary which should be of interest to all of us, although the Justice here was one of most likely a very few who truely understood the relationship and history of which Charles Warren tries to describe but it presented here in very clear language, dispite the fact this is a Justice.

• *"It has been said that this appellate power of the Supreme Court of the United States is sustained by contemporaneous construction of the constitution. This is, however, chiefly founded on the opinion expressed in the political work entitled 'The Federalist,' consisting of a series of articles written by Messrs. Hamilton, Madison, and Jay, over the *368 signature of 'Publius.' While this work is not entitled to the weight of judicial authority, it is liable to the further objection that it was a newspaper publication, written in the haste and excitement of a political contest. And although the authors were gentlemen eminently distinguished for ability and patriotism, yet they took part with the political party, which, in the constitutional convention, insisted on an enlargement of the powers of the federal government beyond that which was conceded by the convention in the formation of the constitution. It is a historical fact, that the convention which formed the constitution of the United States was, to a considerable extent, divided into two parties, one of which insisted on the establishment of a national government, with an absolute negative on the power of the state governments, a strictly federal government, a strictly federal government, reserving and securing to the several states their freedom and sovereignty as distinct, equal, and co-ordinate governments. On the one side, it was urged that the danger to be apprehended was, that the reserved powers of the states would combine and destroy the efficiency of the delegated power; and on the other side, it was strenuously insisted that the danger to be feared was that the delegated powers of the general government would absorb the reserved powers of the states and result in a consolidated government destructive to the sovereignty of the states, and dangerous to the freedom of the people. This division of opinion was manifested in the proceedings of the convention throughout its deliberations, and produced much solicitude and excitement among the people of the several states. Those in the convention in favor of a national government were found in the minority; and although they yielded in the convention, and ably advocated the adoption of the constitution, they did not abandon their political views, but *369 sought still to carry them out, to some extent, by enlarging the powers of the general government by a very liberal, and in some instances, a latitudinarian construction of the constitution. The authors of the 'Federalist,' acting with the party, which insisted on giving the greatest strength and energy to the general government, placed that construction on the constitution, which tended most to enlarge its powers. It is true, Mr. Madison afterward somewhat changed his course, united with Mr. Jefferson and his friends, and, for a time, adopted the strict construction of the constitution, as appears from his report and resolutions in the legislature of Virginia, in January, 1800."*
  
  
  "It was supposed by the framers of the constitution that the powers of the federal government would be held in check by the popular elections. The practical operation of the system, however, has demonstrated the utter fallacy of this expectation. The change of administrations and officers under the federal government, as a general thing, seems to have had but little effect other than to bring a fresh supply of persons into power, who struggle with renewed vigor and increased recklessness for their various purposes of ambition, cupidity, and aggrandizement.
  The persons in the service and interest of the federal government throughout the vast expanse of country from the Atlantic to the Pacific, upon the high seas, and in foreign countries, must exceed two hundred and fifty thousand in number; and the dependants and aspirants, who are expecting to profit by the powers of the federal government, are more than five times that number. Besides this, the extensive power and influence of the associated wealth of the country, under the special privileges and immunities of corporations, have become, by means of the adjudications of the federal judiciary, attached to the supremacy of the federal government by the all-controlling tie of self-interest. With such an accumulation and concentration of interest and influence, the federal government, collecting and disbursing annually a revenue of from sixty to eighty millions of dollars, with the entire control of all the military and naval forces, of all the military fortifications and munitions of war throughout the country, wields a power surpassed by but few governments in the world.
  With its immense resources, vast patronage, and extensive emoluments, concede to the federal government the constructive *423 powers to the full extent claimed for it, unchecked by the co-ordinate powers of the several states, and nothing short of a revolution can prevent it becoming absolute."
  * THE PIQUA BRANCH OF THE STATE BANK OF OHIO v.*KNOUP, 6 Ohio St. 342, 1856 WL 59**(1856).

It is evident from this case that Justice Bartley saw as we do today the falacy in checking this extemely abused power, to the point that, event then, the only cure was revolution.* I am sure he would be leading the charge today.

Hi All -

In regard to the Constitution, there is often some discussion regarding which is the correct title:
(1) “The Constitution of the u/United States of America”, or
(2) “The Constitution for the u/United States of America”

As I understand it, the second option is based on the last line of the Preamble to the Constitution, where the Founding fathers wrote (in relevant part), “...do ordain and establish this constitution for the United States of America”.

When I was studying the Preamble, during my researching of the meaning of the word “republic”, I took care to be especially cognizant of the technically correct names of the then existing political entities and the political status of the Framers of the Constitution.

The united States did then exist as a single entity, the Thirteen former colonies having become politically organized under the Articles of Confederation. (The lower case “u” seemingly more appropriate because “united” is an adjective used to describe the relationship of the “States” to each other).

Likewise (and obviously) the Thirteen former colonies of Great Brittan also existed, but the Framers of the Constitution were not sitting in their capacity as state representatives (as they had not been sent there to write a new constitution), they were sitting in their private person capacity, as the People who had previously formed the Thirteen separate and independent sovereign States (and as those who had been recognized as sovereign individuals by the King of Spain, the King of France and King George III, in the Treaty of 1783), thus the People of the united States began the Preamble with the words, “We the people of the united States...”; and as their purpose was (or, had become, because they had abandoned the purpose for which they had been appointed), to create a constitution FOR the united States - that is, their purpose was to create a constitution for the legislatures of the Thirteen States to consider and (hopefully) adopt. The Constitution would not become the Constitution of the United States until it was adopted by the States. Here is where the discussion usually goes astray - in regard to the meaning of the word “of”:

of >preposition 1 expressing the relationship between a part and a whole. 2 belonging to; 3 expressing the relationship between a general category and something which belongs to such a category.

What I gather from all this is that, acting in their private person sovereign capacity, the sovereign People of the united States created the Constitution for the united States, for it to be considered by the individual States and when (and if) it was adopted the Constitution would then become the Constitution of the u/United States of America.

In any event, I don’t think it makes any significant technical difference which way it is written but it seems that using the word “for” makes the user appear illiterate or ignorant, IMHO.

I would also have the same opinion regarding the writing of united using a lower case “u”, but I nevertheless sometimes use “for” or “united”, depending on the circumstances and purpose of the writing.

Cheers,

Yadu

[weishaupt1776]

I appreciate the angle. I believe that your post illuminates the fact that the Constitution enumerates that the Federal Gov can only act on the States NOT the people in the States.(National Gov)

[weishaupt1776]

Folks, this is some serious sh@#!$tuff !

PIQUA BANK v. KNOUP
6 Ohio St. 342, 1856 WL 59 (Ohio)
AT 393:

• "A national government is the government of the people of a single state or nation, united as a community by what is termed the social compact, and possessing complete and perfect supremacy over persons and things, so far as they can be made the lawful objects of civil government.
  A federal government is distinguished from a national government by its being the government of a community of independent and sovereign states, united by compact.

Now connect with the Sixteenth Amendment - Income Tax

• The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration.

Among the several what? Is it among the several Who?

What does it NOT say?

Does the 16th Amendment authorize the Congress to lay and collect an income tax in a National Capacity among the people in the several states?

Or does the 16th Amendment authorize the Congress to lay and collect an income tax in a Federal Capacity on any other than just the several states?

When those bootlickers tap dance around this, it will just be more evidence that their jurisdiction is based on violence and not good faith and fairness.

Forget the worn out "16th Amndmt wasn't ratified argument" OR that "wages aren't income" OR what apportionment means.

SMACK 'EM DOWN WITH JURISDICTION!!!!!!!!!

Our most knowledgable justice continues at 394:

• "The thirty-ninth number of the 'Federalist' furnishes the following distinction between a national and federal government:
  • ''The idea of a national government involves in it not only an authority over the individual citizens, but an indefinite supremacy over all persons and things, so far as they are objects of lawful government. Among a people consolidated into one nation, this supremacy is completely vested in the national legislature. Among communities united for particular purposes, it is vested partly in the general and partly in the municipal legislatures. In *394 the former case, all local authorities are subordinate to the supreme, and may be controlled, directed, or abolished by it at pleasure. In the latter, the local or municipal authorities form distinct and independent portions of the supremacy, no more subject within their respective spheres to the general authority than the general authority is subject to them within its own sphere . In this relation, then, the proposed government can not be deemed a national one, since its jurisdiction extends to certain enumerated objects only, and leaves to the several states a residuary and inviolable sovereignty over all other objects.'
    Originally each state of the American Union was, in the language of the declaration of independence, 'free and independent,' possessing all the powers and supremacy of a separate and distinct nation of people. The constitution of the United States originated from the confederation of the states under the articles of confederation of 1778, the first and second articles of which were as follows:
    'ART. 1. The style of this confederacy shall be ' The United States of America
    'ART. 2. Each state retains its sovereignty, freedom , and independence , and every power, jurisdiction, and right, which is not, by this confederation, expressly delegated to the United States in Congress assembled.
  t is not pretended by any that this confederacy possessed the elements of a national government, but it is admitted to have been a simple compact between independent states for mutual defense, and some other general purposes. It is claimed by some, however, that, by the constitution of the United States, the sovereignty of the people of each state was surrendered and transferred to the people of all the states, in the aggregate, and that thus the people of all the states of the Union became consolidated into one single community or nation. The history of the formation of the constitution exposes the utter fallacy of such an idea. The convention which framed the constitution was called, not by the act or authority of the people of the several states in mass, but by a resolution of the Congress, the organ of the several states under the confederacy. And it was called, not *395 for the purpose of establishing a national government, but on the contrary, in the language of the resolution of the Congress of the confederacy calling the convention, 'for the sole and express purpose of revising the articles of confederation, and reporting to Congress and the several state legislatures, such alterations and provisions therein , as shall render the federal constitution adequate to the exigencies of the government, and the preservation of THE UNION.'
  
  The object of the convention is here most explicitly defined. It was not to establish a national government for the people of all the states, and thereby abolish the state sovereignties, but solely and expressly to revise the articles of confederation between the several states, etc. With this distinctly-defined object in view, the delegates to that convention were appointed, not by the authority of the people of the states in the aggregate, but by the legislatures of the several states. And the commissions from the several states to their delegates in this convention expressly limited their authority to this definite object, for which the convention was convened. In the convention which framed the constitution, the delegates voted by states, and after its formation it was submitted to the several states and ratified, not by the whole people of the United States, but by each state acting separately and for itself, as an independent sovereignty.
  
  The formation and ratification of the constitution, therefore, was not the act of the people of the states collectively , but the act of the people of each state acting separately and independently for themselves. And the distinctly-defined object with which it was done was not the establishment of a consolidated national government for the people of the whole United States, as one community or nation, but the simple revision of the articles of confederation, and *396 the establishment of a government based on the federal compact. This is fully sustained by the views of Mr. Madison, expressed in the number of the 'Federalist' last above quoted, in which he said:
  
  'This assent and ratification is to be given by the people, not as individuals composing one entire nation, but as composing the distinct and independent states to which they respectively belong. It is to be the assent and ratification of the several states, derived from the supreme authority in each state, the authority of the people themselves. The act, therefore, establishing the constitution will not be a national but a federal act.'
  And the author continues:
  • 'That it will be a federal and not a national act, as these terms are understood by the objectors, the act of the people as forming so many independent states, not as forming one aggregate nation, is obvious from this single consideration, that it is to result neither from the decision of a majority of the people of the Union, nor that of a majority of the states. It must result from the unanimous assent of the several states that are parties to it, differing no otherwise from their ordinary assent than in its being expressed, not by the legislative authority, but by that of the people themselves. Were the people regarded in this transaction as forming one nation, the will of the majority of the whole people of the United States would bind the minority in the same manner as the majority in each state must bind the minority, and the will of the majority must be determined either by a comparison of the individual votes, or by considering the will of the majority of the states as evidence of the will of the majority of the people of the United States. Neither of these rules has been adopted. Each state, in ratifying the constitution, is considered as a sovereign body, independent of all others, and only to be bound by its own voluntary act. In this relation, then, the new constitution will, if established, be a federal and not a national constitution.'
  The preamble to the constitution has been appealed to, in support of the doctrine that the constitution of the United States was ordained and established by and for the people of the states collectively, as a distinct community or nation. This argument is founded upon a mere *397 literal interpretation of the preamble, wholly disregarding the true authority by which the constitution was established, the source from which its powers were derived, and the true nature and objects of the powers delegated. The preamble reads: ' We, the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, etc., do ordain and establish this constitution of the United States of America .' What is here meant by the _expression, ' we, the people of the United States? ' It expresses the authority by which the thing was done. It means the people by whose authority the constitution was formed and ratified. It was the act of forming and ratifying the constitution, which ordained and established it . It was formed by delegates appointed by the representatives of the people of the several states in their respective state legislatures; and it was ratified by the several states, through a convention of delegates in each state, elected by the people of the state, each state, in doing the same, acting for itself and by the authority of its people, as a separate and independent nation.

[weishaupt1776]

The constitution, therefore, was ordained and established, not by the whole people of the United States collectively, or in mass , as a distinct community, but by the several states, the people of each acting in the name and by the authority of their state, as a distinct, independent, sovereign people. It is, therefore, incontestable, that the words of the preamble, 'we, the people of the United States,' mean the people of the several states of the Union, not collectively and in mass , but as the people of distinct, independent states, acting by their respective separate state authorities , in forming a compact with each other, and establishing a federal government, or government, the parties to which were distinct communities, or independent states , as contradistinguished from the people of all the states taken collectively, or in mass. At the time of the formation of the constitution, *398 the states were members of the confederacy united under the style of 'the United States of America,' and upon the express condition that ' each state retains its sovereignty, freedom, and independence .' And the consideration that, under the confederation, 'we, the people of the United States of America,' indubitably signified the people of the several states of the Union, as free, independent, and sovereign states, coupled with the fact that the constitution was a continuation of the same Union , and a mere revision or remodeling of the confederation, is absolutely conclusive, that, by the term, 'the United States,' is meant the several states united as independent and sovereign communities; and by the words, 'we, the people of the United States,' is meant the people of the several states as distinct and sovereign communities , and not the people of the whole United States collectively as a nation. **30 The preamble declares that the constitution was ordained and established ' for the United States of America .' And as 'the United States' means the several states united by compact under a federal government of limited and expressly defined powers, it follows that the constitution was ordained and established for the people of the several states as distinct communities, by whom it was ordained and established. The omission to enumerate the states by name, by which and for which the constitution was ordained and established, makes nothing against this interpretation. It appears from the proceedings in the convention which formed the constitution, that the first draft of the constitution contained an enumeration of the states by name, after the word 'PEOPLE;' but after the adoption of the seventh and last article, providing that 'the ratification of the conventions of nine states should be sufficient for the establishment of this constitution between the states so ratifying the same ,' it became necessary to strike out the *399 enumeration of the states by name, which was accordingly done. See 1 Madison's Debates, 1539.

The objects , for which the constitution was ordained and established, are explicitly defined in the preamble. Had the object been to abolish the states as independent and sovereign communities, and establish a national government for the American people collectively, as constituting one consolidated distinct community, it would have effected a change far greater than that which was effected by the American revolution; and that purpose would have been manifested by provisions leaving no ground for cavil or doubt. But the objects of the constitution declared in the preamble, differ very little from the purposes of the confederation as declared in the third number of the articles of confederation. The objects announced in the constitution are, to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity . These purposes are very far from indicating an intention to establish a consolidated national government. The first purpose named is that of forming a more perfect union, thus recognizing the existing union between the several states under the confederation, and simply proposing to render it more perfect . What union is here contemplated? The question admits of but one answer. The union between the independent and sovereign states already existing. The federal character of the government is here explicitly declared as distinguished from a consolidated national government of the American people. And when we consider the constitution as ordained and established by the people of the several states, for themselves , as distinct and sovereign communities , the objects announced in the preamble are plain and easy of comprehension. They were to perfect their union as distinct and *400 sovereign communities; to establish justice among them; to insure their domestic tranquility; to provide for their common defense and general welfare; and to secure the blessings of liberty to them and their posterity, as the people of several distinct communities. And the provisions in the body of the constitution, in every article, when correctly construed, fully confirm the views here expressed. 1 Calhoun's Works, 130, 137.

**31 According to the doctrine of the 'Federalist,' however, in one part of the work, the government of the United States is partly federal and partly national in its operation , and in the source from which its powers are derived. This position, however, will not bear the test of examination. The constitution is admitted to be federal, and not national by the same work, as has been already shown. And inasmuch as the government derives all its powers from the constitution, and is organized on the basis of it, and indeed constituted by it, how the government can be national in any part, or in any sense, is not easy of comprehension. According to the theory of our institutions, sovereignty abides in the people, and government is constituted by a delegation of civil power in trust for the purposes prescribed. If the general government is to any extent, or in any sense, a national government, it must be to that extent, or in that sense, the government of the whole people of the several states collectively, or as one consolidated community; and this could not have been brought about, without the people of the several states surrendering their sovereignty, and transferring it, not to the government, but to the whole people of the states collectively. It has been said, that sovereignty is a thing which, from its nature, is not susceptible of division--that the sovereign power may delegate authority and prescribe limits for its exercise; but can not surrender a portion of its sovereignty, without *401 ceasing to be the repository of the sovereignty of a state or nation. Without stopping to inquire into the correctness of this position, it is sufficient to say, that there is no provision in the constitution of the United States, or act in its formation and adoption, which amounts to anything like a surrender of sovereignty by the people of the several states, and a transfer of it to the whole people of the states collectively, as a distinct community, or consolidated nation of people.

[weishaupt1776]

The particulars in which the 'Federalist' claims the government to be partly national and partly federal , are the following: First, in regard to the house of representatives in Congress; Second, in regard to the executive department; and lastly, in regard to the power of amendment. As to the first, it is said, in No. 39 of the work, that 'the house of representatives will derive its powers from the people of America, and the people will be represented in the same proportion, and on the same principle, as they are in the legislature of a particular state;' and that so far the government is national , and not federal , etc. The fallacy of this doctrine is most glaring. All the powers of the government, including those of the house of representatives, are derived from the constitution; and the powers of the constitution are delegated not by the American people in the aggregate, as a distinct community or nation, but by the people of the several states, as separate, independent, and sovereign states. And consistently with the constitution, it is not competent to elect the members of the house of representatives by the American people collectively, as a distinct community. On the contrary, by the express provisions of the constitution, they are required to be elected by the people of the several states, not as composing mere districts of one great community, but as distinct and *402 independent states. The first bill which passed Congress apportioning the members of the house of representative among the several states, was vetoed by President Washington, expressly on the ground that it assumed as its basis that the people of the several states composed mere election districts of one great community, instead of being, as in truth they are under the constitution, distinct and independent parties to the compact upon which the government is founded. By the terms of the constitution, the representatives are apportioned among the several states in a mode expressly prescribed, and they are required to be elected by the people of the several states as independent communities. They may be elected by the people of any state, either by general ticket or by districts; so that the members of the house of representatives, be the mode of election what it may, are elected as the delegates of the several states, in their distinct, independent, and sovereign character as members of the Union. Neither is it true that the people of each state are represented in the house of representatives on the same principle, and in the same proportion, as they are in the legislature of each state. On the contrary, it is an incontestable fact that they are represented in their respective state legislatures as mere individuals, and by election districts entirely under the control of each state, and by a ratio or proportion fixed by each state for itself, and different in different states.

**32 As to the executive department, the argument is equally groundless. The president of the United States is elected not by the whole people of the United States in the aggregate, as a distinct community or people, but by electors appointed by each state separately and for itself, ' in such manner as the legislature thereof may direct; ' and the electors are expressly required to meet and vote in their respective *403 states. And in case of a failure of an election by the electoral college, when the election devolves on the house of representatives, the votes are required to be taken by states, the representation from each state having one vote, etc.

And as to the mode prescribed for the exercise of the amending power, it is plainly and expressly derived from, and exercised under, the authority of the people of the several states, acting in their original, distinct, and sovereign character, and not under the authority of the whole people of the states regarded in the aggregate, as a distinct nation. And the modification of the original creating power requiring the consent of each state to make it a party to the constitution, which provides for the amendment of the constitution by three-fourths of the states, voting as states, without regard to population, certainly gives no national character to the government, neither is it inconsistent with the federal character of the Union, inasmuch as it is provided for by express agreement in the compact.

On the whole, it may be said, without the slightest ground for contradiction, that in the formation of the government of the United States, the whole people of the states collectively as a distinct community or nation, were wholly unknown, and in no respect whatever the source of power; and also, that in no operation whatever of the general government, is the action of the people of the states in the aggregate as anation , known or recognized in any manner or form whatever. Indeed, the people of the several states of the American Union never have, at any stage of their existence, been consolidated into a single community, so as to constitute one distinct people or nation; and as such , of course, never could have exercised any agency or participation, *404 either in the formation, or in the administration of this system of government.

From what has been said, it must be apparent, that the government of the United States was ordained and established by the people of the several states as distinct, independent, and sovereign communities; and that while the governments of the several states derive their respective powers from the people as individuals united under the social compact in their respective states, the government of the United States derives its powers from the states as organized communities, united by federal compact. Each state government is a government of a community of people, while that of the United States is a government of a community of states. A state government and the United States government are operative in each state; and each has its distinct, independent sphere of action. The main objects of the authority of the general government, are the relations of the states with each other, and with foreign nations, and the common defense and welfare of the federal Union; leaving the internal affairs and domestic interests of the people of each state to the authority of the state government. The delegated powers appertaining to government are divided between these two governments, and each is divested of what the other possesses; each acting for itself, and by its own separate authority, the powers of each being entirely distinct and independent of the other, it follows of necessity, that the two governments are equal and co-ordinate governments in each state of the Union; each paramount and supreme within the sphere of its powers. The confederation which preceded the constitution of the United States, was subordinate to the state governments, upon which, to a great extent, it was dependent. To remedy the deficiencies of the confederation, *405 the powers delegated by the constitution were made independent of the states. So that the government of the Union and that of the several states, having each distinct and independent powers, and each distinct and independent spheres of action, became equal and co-ordinate governments . It follows, as a necessary consequence, that each of the two governments being independent of the other, each must be supreme within the sphere of its operations, and neither can be subordinate to the other. So that the judicial, as well as the legislative and executive powers of each, must of necessity be not only entirely distinct and separate , but also independent of each other.

This view of the subject, so far as the separate, independent, and co-ordinate judicial power of the two governments is involved, is fully sustained by judicial decisions in both the state and in the federal courts. In the case of Martin v. Hunter, 1 Wheat. 304, the Supreme Court of the United States declare the doctrine, that Congress can not vest any portion of the judicial power of the United States in any courts, except those which are ordained and established under the Constitution of the United States.