Welcome to the official national headquarters of the American Patriot Party. We stand for liberty, the Constitution, and the principles of the Founding Fathers. Join us in defending freedom, state sovereignty, and true Jeffersonian ideals.
APP Master Site coming 2026.
John Locke, Second Treatise on Civil Government 1689
Samuel Adams, Absolute Rights, 1772
Federalist 46, 1788
Virginia Ratifying Convention 6-16-1788
VA & KY Resolutions 1798
https://americanpatriotparty.cc/American_Patriot_Party.pdf
#194: "Their persons are free by a native right, and their properties, be they more or less, are their own, and at their own dispose, and not at his; or else it is no property. Supposing the conqueror gives to one man a thousand acres, to him and his heirs for ever; to another he lets a thousand acres, for his life, under the rent of L50 or L500 per annum. Has not the one of these a right to his thousand acres for ever, and the other during his life, paying the said rent? And hath not the tenant for life a property in all that he gets over and above his rent, by his labour and industry, during the said term, supposing it be double the rent? Can any one say, the king, or conqueror, after his grant, may, by his power of conqueror, take away all, or part of the land, from the heirs of one, or from the other during his life, he paying the rent? Or, can he take away from either the goods or money they have got upon the said land at his pleasure? If he can, then all free and voluntary contracts cease, and are void in the world; there needs nothing but power enough to dissolve them at any time, and all the grants and promises of men in power are but mockery and collusion. For can there be anything more ridiculous than to say, I give you and yours this for ever, and that in the surest and most solemn way of conveyance can be devised, and yet it is to be understood that I have right, if I please, to take it away from you again to-morrow?
#138. Thirdly, the supreme power cannot take from any man any part of his property without his own consent. (APP Note: See these exact words in the Rights of the Colonists) For the preservation of property being the end of government, and that for which men enter into society, it necessarily supposes and requires that the people should have property, without which they must be supposed to lose that by entering into society which was the end for which they entered into it; too gross an absurdity for any man to own. Men, therefore, in society having property, they have such a right to the goods, which by the law of the community are theirs, that nobody hath a right to take them, or any part of them, from them without their own consent; without this they have no property at all. For I have truly no property in that which another can by right take from me when he pleases against my consent. Hence it is a mistake to think that the supreme or legislative power of any commonwealth can do what it will, and dispose of the estates of the subject arbitrarily, or take any part of them at pleasure. ..."
See Paragraph 15: https://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/a1_6_2s5.html
"... The Constitution has taken a medium between the two extremes, and perhaps with more wisdom than either the British or the state governments, with respect to their eligibility to office. They can fill no new offices created by themselves, nor old ones of which they increased the salaries. If they were excluded altogether, it is possible that other disadvantages might accrue from it, besides the impolicy and injustice of depriving them of a common privilege. They will not relinquish their legislative, in order to accept other offices. They will more probably confer them on their friends and connections. If this be an inconvenience, it is incident to all governments. After having heard a variety of principles developed, I thought that on which it is established the least exceptionable, and it appears to me sufficiently well guarded."
(APP NOTE: Apparently NOT well guarded. What happened to this past existing Constitutional TERM LIMITATION which was part of the well understood "ORIGINAL COMPACT"? Was this ever removed and if not, why are all those politicians in the House and Senate, having made themselves ineligible to fill that office by voting for an increase in their own salaries during their previous term, not gone?)
"The natural liberty of man is to be free from any superior power on earth, and not to be under the will or legislative authority of man; but only to have the law of nature for his rule."--
In the state of nature men may as the Patriarchs did, employ hired servants for the defence of their lives, liberty and property: and they should pay them reasonable wages. Government was instituted for the purposes of common defence; and those who hold the reins of government have an equitable natural right to an honourable support from the same principle "that the labourer is worthy of his hire" but then the same community which they serve, ought to be assessors of their pay:
Governors have no right to "SEEK WHAT THEY PLEASE"; by this, instead of being content with the station assigned them, that of honourable servants of the society, they would soon become Absolute masters, Despots, and Tyrants.
(APP NOTE: UNIONS "SEEK WHAT THEY PLEASE" This is why taxes are so high, there is no control over run away government today and people have no ability to consent to taxes placed upon them)
Hence as a private man has a right to say, what wages he will give in his private affairs, so has a Community to determine what they will give and grant of their Substance, for the Administration of publick affairs. And in both cases more are ready generally to offer their Service at the proposed and stipulated price, than are able and willing to perform their duty.--
In short it is the greatest absurdity to suppose it in the power of one or any number of men at the entering into society, to renounce their essential natural rights, or the means of preserving those rights when the great end of civil government from the very nature of its institution is for the support, protection and defence of those very rights: the principal of which as is before observed, are life liberty and property.
If men through fear, fraud or mistake, should in terms renounce and give up any essential natural right, the eternal law of reason and the great end of society, would absolutely vacate such renunciation; the right to freedom being the gift of God Almighty, it is not in the power of Man to alienate this gift, and voluntarily become a slave--
(APP NOTE: Defining the MINIMUM POWER RATIO: 25 to 1 Citizen OVER U.S. Military, the true definition, purpose and need of local private Citizen Militias):
"....The only refuge left for those who prophesy the downfall of the State governments is the visionary supposition that the federal government may previously accumulate a military force for the projects of ambition. The reasonings contained in these papers must have been employed to little purpose indeed, if it could be necessary now to disprove the reality of this danger. That the people and the States should, for a sufficient period of time, elect an uninterupted succession of men ready to betray both; that the traitors should, throughout this period, uniformly and systematically pursue some fixed plan for the extension of the military establishment; that the governments and the people of the States should silently and patiently behold the gathering storm, and continue to supply the materials, until it should be prepared to burst on their own heads, must appear to every one more like the incoherent dreams of a delirious jealousy, or the misjudged exaggerations of a counterfeit zeal, than like the sober apprehensions of genuine patriotism.
Extravagant as the supposition is, let it however be made. Let a regular army (APP NOTE: Armed forces of the United States Army Navy etc) , fully equal to the resources of the country, be formed; and let it be entirely at the devotion of the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT; still it would not be going too far to say, that the State governments, with the people on their side, would be able to repel the danger.
The highest number to which, according to the best computation, a standing army can be carried in any country, does not exceed one hundredth part of the whole number of souls; or one twenty-fifth part of the number able to bear arms. This proportion would not yield, in the United States, an army of more than twenty-five or thirty thousand men.
To these would be opposed a (CITIZEN) militia amounting to near half a million of citizens with arms in their hands, officered by men chosen from among themselves (APP NOTE: NOT BY GOVERNMENT OR MILITARY), fighting for their (CITIZEN'S) common liberties, and united and conducted by governments possessing their affections and confidence. It may well be doubted, whether a (CITIZEN) militia thus circumstanced could ever be conquered by such a proportion of regular troops. Those who are best acquainted with the last successful resistance of this country against the British arms, will be most inclined to deny the possibility of it.
Besides the advantage of (THE CITIZENS) being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, the existence of subordinate governments, to which the people are attached, and by which the militia officers are appointed, forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of.
Notwithstanding the military establishments in the several kingdoms of Europe, which are carried as far as the public resources will bear, the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms. And it is not certain, that with this aid alone they would not be able to shake off their yokes. But were the people to possess the additional advantages of LOCAL governments chosen by themselves, who could collect the national will and direct the national force, and of officers appointed out of the militia, by these governments, and attached both to them and to the militia, it may be affirmed with the greatest assurance, that the throne of every tyranny in Europe would be speedily overturned in spite of the legions which surround it.
Let us not insult the free and gallant citizens of America with the suspicion, that they would be less able to defend the rights of which they would be in actual possession, than the debased subjects of arbitrary power would be to rescue theirs from the hands of their oppressors.
Let us rather no longer insult them with the supposition that they can ever reduce themselves to the necessity of making the experiment, by a blind and tame submission to the long train of insidious measures which must precede and produce it.
The argument under the present head may be put into a very concise form, which appears altogether conclusive. Either the mode in which the federal government is to be constructed will render it sufficiently dependent on the people, or it will not. On the first supposition, it will be restrained by that dependence from forming schemes obnoxious to their constituents. On the other supposition, it will not possess the confidence of the people, and its schemes of usurpation will be easily defeated by the State governments, who will be supported by the people.
On summing up the considerations stated in this and the last paper, they seem to amount to the most convincing evidence, that the powers proposed to be lodged in the federal government are as little formidable to those reserved to the individual States, as they are indispensably necessary to accomplish the purposes of the Union; and that all those alarms which have been sounded, of a meditated and consequential annihilation of the State governments, must, on the most favorable interpretation, be ascribed to the chimerical fears of the authors of them. PUBLIUS.
Mr. EDMUND PENDELTON:"....With respect to the necessity of the TEN MILES SQUARE (Washington, DC) being superseded by the subsequent clause, which gives them (the federal government)power to "make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof", I understand that clause as NOT going a "SINGLE STEP BEYOND" the "DELEGATED powers". What can it act upon? Some power given by THIS Constitution. If they (APP: the federal legislature / government) should be about to pass a law in consequence of this clause, they must pursue some of the "DELEGATED powers" (APP: FROM THE ORIGINAL COMPACT), but can by "NO MEANS" DEPART from them, (N)OR "ARROGATE" (APP: CREATE) "ANY NEW" powers; for the PLAIN LANGUAGE of the clause is, to give them power to pass laws in order to give "effect" to the "DELEGATED" powers".
" RESOLVED, That the General Assembly of Virginia, doth unequivocably express a firm resolution to maintain and defend the Constitution of the United States, and the Constitution of this State, against every aggression either foreign or domestic, and that they will support "the government" of the United States in all measures "warranted" by "the former".
That this assembly most solemnly declares a warm attachment to the Union of the "States", to maintain which it pledges all its powers; and that for this end, it is their duty to watch over and oppose EVERY INFRACTION of those principles which constitute the "ONLY BASIS" of that Union, because a faithful observance of them, can alone secure it's existence and the public happiness.
That this Assembly doth explicitly and peremptorily declare, that it views the powers of the federal government, as resulting from the COMPACT, to which the states are parties; as limited by the "plain sense and intention" of the instrument constituting the "COMPACT"; as NO further valid that they are authorized by the grants "ENUMERATED" in "THAT COMPACT"; and that in case of a deliberate, palpable, and dangerous exercise of other powers, not granted by the said COMPACT, the STATES who are parties thereto, have the right, and are in DUTY bound, to interpose for arresting the progress of the "EVIL", and for maintaining within their respective limits, the authorities, rights and liberties appertaining to them...."
APP NOTE: There is no mention of simply "representation" as they had representatives that did what they wanted or were told by those in England.
No Consent, No freedom.
Learn More: https://www.americanpatriotparty.cc
