Reclaiming the Republic with G.R. Mobley

SUNDAY — 11/26, LIVE, 8–9am PACIFIC on KTRB, The Answer

Bob Zadek

Follow

Published in

Liberation Day

9 min readNov 17, 2017

--

Listen:

Listen now

Guest: G.R. Mobley — Host of the Reclaiming the Republic radio show in Spokane, WA, editor of Mobius Strip Press, and defender of “Constitutional Orthodoxy.”

Topic: A plan to shrink the government to a size that will fit back inside the Constitution.

**Mobius Strip:** A continuum of relative narratives

“Constitutional Orthodoxy (n.) — adhering to the codified processes that were established within the Constitution as defined by the States (founders) during the ratification process. Consequently, the founders dictated and enumerated the limitations and scope of the general government as a delegated entity within the Hybrid Constitutional Republic. Returning to Constitutional Orthodoxy is the only course that will preserve the Constitution, Individual Liberty, and the Republic.”
— G. R. Mobley

2016 confirmed what most libertarians suspected: national elections are not the way to roll back big government. But don’t lose hope–yet.

G. R. Mobley has a surprisingly sound plan for “saving your liberties without a national election.” He explains the concept of “The Republic Review” in a short abstract on his website — the plan requires readers/listeners like to you to take note, and share the message. Mobley writes:

“My plan is 1) simple, 2) Constitutional, and 3) aligns with James Madison and the framers during the ratification debates. In a nutshell, our intent is a call for a Convention to audit the Federal government against the Constitution, which is what I referred to before as a “Republic Review.” This Republic Review is not a convention to rewrite or amend the Constitution, but rather an instrument to reel back the Federal government to its intended function and limited scope as the Framers initially envisioned.”

James “Jemmy” Madison addresses the delegates during the hot Philadelphia summer of 1787.

A simple description of the argument supporting the plan

Mobley says the Constitution is a “contract” amongst the States, “to not only create and define the general (i.e., Federal) government with limited and defined powers, but … also [to create] a perpetual union of these same States.”

He goes directly to the source documents to figure out what this contract spells out:

If one reads “the debates of the Constitutional Convention” (i.e. Madison’s notes), the “Federalist Papers,” the “Anti-Federalist Papers” and the “debates of the Ratification process of the Constitution” by each State, one would have a precise and clear picture of the framer’s sentiments in all the States. Therefore, from reading these founding documents, one can only conclude that all powers and controls that were not delegated or enumerated to the Federal government were left to the States.

Per contract law, Mobley asserts that context is essential to understanding the definitions and intent of a contract. In this case, the contract is the Constitution, and the Ratification Debates set the agreed-upon terms. These terms are still vital. If one part of the contract is not being enforced, the whole contract should be void. In 2017, he says the parties to this contract (i.e., the states) need to renegotiate–-hence, “Republic Review.”

Listeners should ideally read and understand the debates that took place between the Federalists and Anti-Federalists, in and around 1787. However, a concise version of the events appears in Bob’s new book of edited interviews, *Secret Sauce: The Founders’ Original Recipe for Limited American Democracy.* In Chapter 1, the history of the “Great Compromise” is told by the prolific historian Thomas Fleming.

Citing His Sources

But don’t just take Mobley’s word for it. He has gathered quotes from the founders’ debates leading up to and during the negotiations. The writings of James Madison and Alexander Hamilton in the Federalist Papers form the basis of Mobley’s plan:

“In the first place it is to be remembered that the general government is not to be charged with the whole power of making and administering laws. Its jurisdiction is limited to certain enumerated objects, which concern all the members of the republic, but which are not to be attained by the separate provisions of any.”
— Federalist №14, James Madison
“The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce; with which last the power of taxation will, for the most part, be connected. The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the State.”
— Federalist №45 James Madison

It’s hard to imagine a clearer proof that Federal government has usurped the powers reserved to the States than Madison’s quote above.

Hamilton was also adamant about this division of powers between states and general (i.e., Federal) government:

“The separate governments in a confederacy may aptly be compared with the feudal baronies; with this advantage in their favor, that from the reasons already explained, they will generally possess the confidence and good-will of the people, and with so important a support, will be able effectually to oppose all encroachments of the national government.” — Federalist №17, Alexander Hamilton

Both Hamilton and Madison believed the states would guard against Federal encroachments, and alluded to potential remedies if an imbalance should arise:

“Independent of parties in the national legislature itself, as often as the period of discussion arrived, the State legislatures, who will always be not only vigilant but suspicious and jealous guardians of the rights of the citizens against encroachments from the federal government, will constantly have their attention awake to the conduct of the national rulers, and will be ready enough, if any thing improper appears, to sound the alarm to the people, and not only to be the VOICE, but, if necessary, the ARM of their discontent.”
— Federalist №26 Alexander Hamilton
“Were it admitted, however, that the Federal government may feel an equal disposition with the State governments to extend its power beyond the due limits, the latter (the States) would still have the advantage in the means of defeating such encroachments.”
— Federalist №46 James Madison

Madison’s most concise affirmation of the Republic Review idea is his title for his Federalist №49, “Method of Guarding Against the Encroachments of Any One Department of Government by Appealing to the People Through a Convention.”

He had the foresight to see that the Constitution would not be a sufficient safeguard against all-powerful Federal Government:

“The conclusion which I am warranted in drawing from these observations is, that a mere demarcation on parchment of the constitutional limits of the several departments, is not a sufficient guard against those encroachments which lead to a tyrannical concentration of all the powers of government in the same hands.”
— Federalist №48 James Madison

So, How does Republic Review work?

Mobley has a 3-phase plan to reach a convention, in which the states take back the powers granted to them by the Constitution.

Phase I is running an advertising campaign on conservative/libertarian media outlets to raise awareness of the proposal and its legality. Mobley has already begun to make videos to explain the idea, but he is trying to enlist the help of other organizations to spread the word, until enough state legislatures are on board.

The central idea of *Secret Sauce,* is that the Anti-Federalists were right. Madison predicted that the Constitution would be incapable of restraining big government. Mobley recently aired a three-part interview with Bob on the ideas in the book, which you can listen to here. But the second part of the Anti-Federalists’ predictions — about the states’ reassertion of their rights — has yet to come to fruition:

“But ambitious encroachments of the federal government, on the authority of the State governments, would not excite the opposition of a single State, or of a few States only. They would be signals of general alarm. Every government would espouse the common cause. A correspondence would be opened. Plans of resistance would be concerted. One spirit would animate and conduct the whole.”
— Federalist №46 James Madison
“We may safely rely on the disposition of the State legislatures to erect barriers against the encroachments of the national authority. If the foregoing argument is a fallacy, certain it is that I am myself deceived by it, for it is, in my conception, one of those rare instances in which a political truth can be brought to the test of a mathematical demonstration.”
— Federalist №85 Alexander Hamilton

This raises the question Bob and G. R. will try to answer: Why haven’t State legislatures erected the kinds of boundaries that Hamilton predicted would be as certain as 2 + 2 being equal to 4?

Phase II of the plan seeks to educate leaders across organizations that support the Constitution, and get them to disseminate the information found in these historical documents:

Declaration of Independence, USHistory.org
The Articles of Confederation, Library of Congress
Constitution, National Archives
The Constitution Convention debates, Teaching American History
The Northwest Ordinance, OurDocuments.gov
The Ratification Debates of each State, Teaching American History
The Federalist Papers, Project Gutenberg
The Early debates in Congress, Teaching American History
The Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions, Bill of Rights Institute
Madison’s Veto of the 1817 Bonus Bill, Constitution.org

It’s time to get reading, and to “open a new correspondence” using all the tools of digital media, and radio as the cornerstone.

Phase III happens when there is enough ground-level support for state legislatures to begin calling for an audit of the Constitution. 34 states (2/3) are required to call a convention.

There is a path to restoring Constitutional governance, but is there a critical mass? What’s needed now is not a full-fledged movement, but a small remnant that understands the principles of liberty, when they have ceased to resonate with the average voter. Mobley articulates these principles as follows:

“Civil society is wholly dependent upon the symbiosis between the fundamental principles of liberty: free agency, responsibility, and accountability. When these principles are balanced and in harmony with the individual citizens, Liberty then can act as a catalyst in elevating synergy within the community and society. These synergies will lead to stronger spiritual well being, greater productivity, improved health, and development of wealth.”

Tune in — Sunday, 8–9am PT — and call in with your questions for Bob and G. R., at (424) BOB-SHOW.