I can't think of a singular source for that kind of info, most of the like comes from people embroiled in some fight or other, the ol' mother of invention thing.
But the one book that put the cherry on top for me is "The CONstitution that never was" by a fellow I've since befriended, Ralph Boryszewski. Subtitle: "how the American people have been conned by lawyers."
Ralph, now 92, has a very interesting history. As a Rochester New York policeman the Royal Candian Mounted Police (RCMP) made him "mounty of the year" for 1968 for his advocacy for his profession. (ended up in court over representation at a constitutional convention in New York in '66)
At age 90 he was still winning dance contests, haven't heard in a while whether he's still entering any, though.
He's also the only person to obtain certain of the documents he used for researching his book. These include hand written notes of a few of the 'founding fathers' nobody had previously been allowed to handle. (belong to descendants)
And as far as I know he's the only man alive to ever see an official copy of the full "First Judiciary Act," which was the second act of the newly minted "constitutional" congress.
To this date that act has never been published and available to the public. He's working on getting it published along with his commentary at the moment.
Ralph shows this "act" was itself unconstitutional, (gross understatement!) as it totally wiped out Article III (judiciary) and replaced it. The act is over twice the size of the entire constitution itself, and "amended" it horrifically, which if you read the constitution (at Article V) must be accomplished via very specific means.
Passing a "law" creating an entire branch of the government, virtually replacing the entirety of Article III is not the prescribed method of amending the constitution.
BTW there are only two actual Article III courts in America, both have "international" in the name; international claims and international settlements. Reading their 'jurisdictions' is very telling, for example no mention of any "districts," ergo no nexus with any "USDC," which are in fact administrative (congressionally created, non-Article III) "courts."
Ralph proves they had wanted this kind of "judiciary" in the first place, but knew they could never get a constitution past the people if it included such a system. They in fact plotted to get that act through as soon as they opened the doors.
If you read Article III it is very vague when compared with I and II making the exec and legislative "branches." The reason it was vague is because they were actually writing up the "first judiciary act" in secret to fulfill this alleged "independent third branch" while trying to get the constitution passed.
Ralph quotes heavily from arcane writings of the times showing the 'founding fathers' (he calls them the 'founding scoundrels') were actually seeking to entrench the old line oligarchy into power on the continent.
There was nothing wrong with the articles of confederation... except that they adhered to the principles of individual self governance and a decentralized system, effectively empowering the little guy. They (articles) are in accord with the Declaration of Independence. The constitution is not.
I had nearly completed duplicating a big chunk of Ralph's research independently, when I heard him interviewed on a short wave radio show. I was floored. It rang so true, because what I'd seen was making me think the same thing.
Why is Article III so vague? Why did they write a constitution when all they were sent to do was amend the articles of confederation? Why did they even stay in session, the articles call for unanimity of all of the several states in order they be amended, and Rhode Island didn't send a single delegate, the "convention" should have been a dead letter right there? If this Article III makes "one supreme court" then how many judges are supposed to be sitting there?
After we met and talked, he told me I'm the only person he's met that had any kind of an organic grasp of this stuff, especially what it means in terms of consequences today.
For instance if you hold their feet to the lip service they pay their own constitution, you yourself ARE in fact that "one supreme court."
The court in DC they call "the supreme court" was not created by Article III, it was created by congress via the First Judiciary Act.
BTW another trick they pulled was they didn't fund, ergo actually establish any "supreme court" for the first couple sessions of congress, so there was nowhere to go to challenge anything congress and the president were doing, such as determining whether the "First Judiciary Act" was, well, constitutional or not.
Betcha didn't know that. Plus in their haste they'd neglected to include a congressional oath of office in the constitution. So actually the very fist act of congress was a "law" creating that oath.
So if they aren't "congressmen," are not authorized to "pass laws" until they have taken an oath, how could they pass a valid law establishing that very oath they claim is required? They'd taken no oath prior to the passage of that law... the original "punt."
It's always been that way in DC, nothing is new under the sun.
Ralph and I both got our initial direction from 19th century jurist Lysander Spooner. I can provide links to his most important writings.
"No Treason," which begins to reveal what Pat Henry meant when he said "I smell a rat" scurrying around Philadelphia:
http://www.lysanderspooner.org/node/44"Natural Law," how "all legislation is an absurdity" (indeed!):
http://lysanderspooner.org/node/59"No Treason N0. 6" is subtitled "the constitution of no authority," that plus the facts surrounding the creation of that document that Ralph has unearthed (and remember the winner writes history) are all you need to know.
This is all pretty much academic. What's really important is what the federal reserve and other central banks are really all about, especially what they've been up to recently. (and the near future is potentially quite perilous as a result)
