Donald v. Hillary
A Nation in Turmoil
This election will have repercussions for the next several decades. There is a silver lining which has been cancelled by secret combinations that have gained control of this Nation. The documentary Hillary’s America outlines one visible combination structured in the Democratic Party. The Republican Party is not exempt, as behind the scenes powerful players exist in both parties.
Because of the election turmoil being experienced this year, the likelihood of civil riots are high. There is a high probability that there are those who will call upon the use of the 2nd amendment to protect what they consider a serious threat to our Nation in rebellion against the elected. The information being disseminated against the Democratic establishment and their nomination of Hillary Clinton is a cause for this lack of confidence. There is equal ill feeling about the Republican nomination of Donald Trump. This can be avoided by calling attention to the public that the States have the responsibility to protect their citizens from an abusive federal government.
Education is the only protection the People have at their disposal to combat these forces. The forces that are opposing Donald Trump are not only coming from the Democrats, but also the Republicans financed by special interests fighting to maintain their control over the nation. They oppose Donald for two reasons: first he is not a professional politician and secondly, he is not a lawyer. To many, like myself, we look at these as qualities.
Professional politicians and lawyers are trained in argument as noted by the rhetoric used by Loretta Lynch, Hillary and other lawyer-trained people called before Congress to address the Email scandal and Hillary’s inability to govern. They have the ability to spin the language to avoid answering the question. They open their mouth and verbiage spills out however the question is never answered.
This Nation’s only defense against this grab for power is again, found in knowledge. James Madison explained it very well; “Knowledge will forever govern ignorance; and a people who mean to be their own governors must arm themselves with the power which knowledge gives.”
That knowledge comes from understanding and defending the Constitution. Former Supreme Court Justice Scalia “believed that one must look first to the actual text of the Constitution and then apply the historical meaning the words had at the time the original language was adopted.” It comes from understanding and applying the fundamentals supporting the Constitution. In understanding the Constitution and its defenses, we must look to two important elements. First, our protection from an abusive government is found in Article I, Section 8, clause 17:
“The Congress shall have Power . . . To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, . . . and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings; . . .” (emphasis added)
Clause 17 was codified in Title 18 of the United States Code Part I, Chapter 1, Section 7. Special maritime and territorial jurisdiction of the United States defined, (3):
“Any lands reserved or acquired for the use of the United States, and under the exclusive or concurrent jurisdiction thereof, or any place purchased or otherwise acquired by the United States by consent of the legislature of the State in which the same shall be, for the erection of a fort, magazine, arsenal, dockyard, or other needful building.” (emphasis added)
The legislative authority of Congress is limited to very specific land areas. The Constitution gives only legislative authority over the 10 square miles “by Cession of particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, . . .” known as the District of Columbia. The only other land areas to where Congress can exercise legislative authority is confined to land areas “purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the [individual] State . . . .” All of the other clauses 2 through 16 deal with “external” affairs of the Nation. James Madison stated in The Federalist Papers No. 45:
“The powers delegated to the federal government are few and defined. . . . . The former (the federal government) will be exercised principally on external objects as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce; with which the last power of taxation will, for the most part, be connected. . . .”
Justice James Iredell writing in part for the Court in Chisholm v. Georgia (1793):
“The United States are sovereign as to all the powers of Government actually surrendered: Each State in the Union is sovereign as to all the powers reserved. It must necessarily be so, because the United States have no claim to any authority but such as the States have surrendered to them: . . .” (emphasis added)
Justice Brewer writing for the Court in Caha v. United States (1894):
“The laws of Congress in respect to those matters do not extend into the territorial limits of the states, but have force only in the District of Columbia and other places that are within the exclusive jurisdiction of the national government.”
Justice McReynolds writing for the Court in New York Cent. R. Co. v. Chisholm (1925):
“Legislation is presumptively territorial and confined to limits over which the law-making power has jurisdiction.” Sandberg v. McDonald, 248 U.S. 185
Justice Holmes writing for the Court in American Banana Co. v. United States (1908):
“The foregoing considerations would lead, in case of doubt, to a construction of any statute as intended to be confined in its operation and effect to the territorial limits over which the lawmaker has general and legitimate power. ‘All legislation is prima facie territorial.’”
Simply put, the federal government cannot legislate within the external boarders of the Sovereign States. Unless the laws passed by Congress deal with powers that exist in the other clauses of Section 8 of Article I, those laws have no effect on the lives or liberties of the Sovereign People of their respective States. The operation of two elements are essential for any federal jurisdiction: first, consent of the respective State and second, acceptance by the federal government. “Unless and until the United States has accepted jurisdiction over lands …, it shall be conclusively presumed that no such jurisdiction has been accepted.” (Title 40, Section 255)
Justice Thomas pointed out that the federal government has limited authority and with respect to the States:
“[T]he Federal Government has nothing approaching a police power. . . .
“Congress has plenary power over the District of Columbia and the territories. (cite omitted) The grant of comprehensive legislative power over certain areas of the Nation, when read in conjunction with the rest of the Constitution, further confirms that Congress was not ceded plenary authority over the whole Nation.”
Federal legislative acts then apply only to an area know as the Federal Zone and have legal effect on the People within the States, and outside the federal zone. Let the federal government legislate and pass all the laws they want. Their actions have no effect on the People within the States. This includes income tax laws. Our protection against an abusive government lies with the understanding and application of this fact.
To paraphrase an axiom stated by Alexander Hamilton, a control over the substance of the States, is control over the States. The federal government is milking the natural resources of the States and then turning around and “dangling the carrot” in front of them. Thus buying their allegiance to the will of the “big brother.” The solution to our problem with the federal government, although simple, will take some reeducation, patience and resolve. Applying the principles of the Constitution the People will have to learn that: 1) the People are Sovereign; 2) the income tax does not operate in the States; 3) all of the legislation passed by the federal government, including the regulations, have no effect on the People; 4) only those individuals who are under contract (employment) to the federal government, i.e., privilege, or reside in the District of Columbia, territories or federal enclaves ceded by the States to the federal government are within the scope of the federal legislation and the income tax.
When the People under the jurisdiction of the States divorce themselves from paying tribute to Big Brother, it will leave more wealth within the States. This being the case, the People will not be so apposed to giving more to the States, for they will be closer to the legislature of the State so that they can exert more control over their representatives.
“The States are separate and independent sovereigns.
Sometimes they have to act like it.”
Chief Justice John Roberts (2012)
NFIB v. Kathleen Sebelius
This is the challenge directed at the States by Chief Justice John Roberts. Sovereignty is both misunderstood and misused thanks to the changes made in our educational system, in that civics is no longer taught, being subject the legal system’s ideology of an all powerful central government subjecting its authority over the people and the States. Both the federal government and the states are sovereign within the scope of their jurisdiction. The ultimate sovereign in this chain are the People. They are the creators of government. “The creature cannot rule the creator.” Justice Brewer, Kansas v. Colorado, ()
In a 1886 case, Justice Thomas Matthews wrote an opinion which in Wick Wo v. Hopkins which “stands as one of the few minority rights opinions . . . His classic statement stands as the basis of all twentieth -century public civil rights disparate impact cases . . .”
“When we consider the nature and the theory of our institutions of government, the principles upon which they are supposed to rest, and review the history of their development, we are constrained to conclude that they do not mean to leave room for the play and action of purely personal and arbitrary power. Sovereignty itself is, of course, not subject to law, for it is the author and source of law; but in our system, while sovereign powers are delegated to the agencies of government, sovereignty itself remains with the people, by whom and for whom all government exists and acts. . . . For the very idea that one man may be compelled to hold his life, or the means of living, or any material right essential to the enjoyment of life, at the mere will of another, seems to be intolerable in any country where freedom prevails, as being the essence of slavery itself.” (18 U.S. 356)
As a result of this turning point in our Nation’s history, it is incumbent upon the People and the States to reassert their authority over the Federal Government and take their rightful position as a “line of defense” of the people against the unlawful actions of the federal government. Neither Donald Trump nor Hillary Clinton understand the limited authority of the federal government, that within only a few areas, the executive and legislative authority of the federal government is extremely limited. The executive, legislative and judicial departments of government have reeducated this nation in civil law procedures, ignoring the foundation of our Constitution in the Common law theory of government.
Returning to the direction of Justice Scalia, the Constitution must be read within the framework of the times in which it was written. Understanding this the second fundamental is found in the language in the Constitution declaring in Article VI:
“This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; . . .” (emphasis added)
The “law of the land” . . . here is a term that needs to be understood because not all laws of the legislature fall within the category of being the “law of the land.” Supreme Court Justice Joseph Story, (1833) from his works on the General Review of the Colonies, Chapter XVI:
§73. “There is, however, a difference between these two species of colonies in respect to the laws, by which they are governed, at least according to the jurisprudence of the common law. If an uninhabited country is discovered and planted by British subjects, the English laws are said to be immediately in force there; for the law is the birthright of every subject. So that wherever they go, they carry their laws with them; and the new found country is governed by them. . . .
§ 79. “And so has been the uniform doctrine in America ever since the settlement of the colonies. The universal principle (and the practice has conformed to it) has been, that the common law is our birthright and inheritance, and that our ancestors brought hither with them upon their emigration all of it, which was applicable to their situation. The whole structure of our present jurisprudence stands upon the original foundations of the common law.”
16 American Jurisprudence 2d, §113:
“An important canon of construction is that constitutions must be construed with reference to common law, since, in most respects, the federal and state constitutions did not repudiate but cherished the established common law . . . It has been said that without reference to this common law the language of the federal constitution could not be understood.”
Justice John Catron concurring in Waring v. Clark, (1847):
“I agree with my dissenting brethren, that the constitution of the United States is an instrument and plan of government founded in the common law, and that to common law terms and principles we must refer for a true understanding of it, . . .”
In the extensive work on Admiralty, Erastus Cornelius Benedict noted that:
“[W]here the common law was the of the land, the civil law was held to be the law of the admiralty, . . . .” (Benedict on Admiralty, Vol. 1, section 15. The Civil Law)
Circuit Justice Baldwin and District Judge Hopkins in Bains v. James and Catherine (1832):
“It is therefore a self evident proposition, that the jurisprudence of the United States is not founded in the civil law, . . .”
All this underlining the actions of the British government against the Colonies penned by Thomas Jefferson and George Mason in the Declaration of Independence:
“He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his assent to their acts of pretended legislation: . . .”
Justice Campbell dissenting in Jackson v. The Magnolia (1857):
“In 1768, John Adams, the Coke of the Revolution, prepared for the citizens of Boston instructions to their representatives, Otis, Cushing, Samuel Adams, and Hancock. The citizens said to their representatives, that, ‘next to the revenue itself, the late extensions of the jurisdiction of the admiralty are our greatest grievance. The American courts of admiralty seem to be forming by degrees into a system that is to overturn our constitution, and to deprive us of our best inheritance, the laws of the land. It would be thought in England a dangerous innovation, if the trial of any matter on land was given to the admiralty.’. . . ” (at 330)
“That Congress declare that ‘The respective colonies are entitled to the common law of England, and to the benefit of such English statutes as existed at the time of the colonization, which had been found suitable to their situation.’
“In their address setting forth the cause and necessity for their taking up of arms, they allege that statutes have been passed for extending the jurisdiction of courts of admiralty beyond their ancient limits.” (at 331)
The acts of “pretended legislation” passed by governments must come to an end. It is time to put common sense back into government. As observed by one, the foundation for the destruction of this government has been laid by the introduction of the civil law, pretended legislation and unrighteousness of the legal system, or the lawyers and judges. Although morality is important, the unrighteousness here is in the authority developed by the legal profession to a dominion over the lives and property of the People. This has recently been shown in the implementing of the Affordable (?) Health Care Act or Obamacare and the “individual mandate” provision of the Act. This is a violation of the conscience and agency of the People. These and others are acts of “Big Brother.”
If we continue to allow governments to act as big brother under the disguise of the “general welfare,” we are giving the government an inch and they are taking the mile. The fundamental element for sound government, personal liberty and freedom comes from frequent recurrence to fundamental principles. As history has shown that “we have learned by sad experience that it is the nature and disposition of almost all men, as soon as they get a little authority as they suppose, they will immediately begin to exercise unrighteous dominion.”
Education has been negligent in the presenting the fundamentals of the common law. In a Marquette Law Review article, Circuit Judge A.H. Reid of the 16th Judicial Court, commented on this principle:
“. . . [I]t (fundamental principles) impressed with force the great truth that sound government must proceed upon sound, unchanging principles of justice and moderation, to which reference should be always made in deciding upon the wisdom of any proposed legislative policy.”
Judge Reid also counsels:
“The lawyer who depends merely on decided cases as authority for the position he takes in argument, and who, as it often occurs, is bewildered and in doubt when without an authority to direct him, is indeed but poorly prepared for the service he should render. But he who tests every case as it comes to him by the touch-stone of fundamental principles may, and generally does, know the law applicable to the case, . . . This is always assuming that the legislative fiat has not arbitrarily interfered with the natural course of reasoning.”
This admonition by Judge Reid is hidden in the legal system. I have yet to find any of my State legislators or the governor who even know what the fundamentals are for government. They do not understand nor do know how the fundamentals of the Common law. The common law is simple: it basically respects the natural freedoms of the People, in that the People are free to conduct their lives, as long as their conduct does not interfere with the rights and freedoms of others, without controls or limitations imposed upon them: “That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, . . .”
“Can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are of the gift of God? That they are not to be violated but with his wrath?” (Thomas Jefferson, Works 8:404)
The Common law can be reduced to its common denominator expressed in religious scripture as the “golden rule” essentially, do unto others as you would have others do unto you. We can bring this forward to a principle known today as “delegation of authority.” A maxim that one can only delegate to another that power or authority that they posses.
Chief Justice Warren, reaffirms the ruling made in West Virginia State Bd. of Educ. v. Barnette:
“One’s right to life, liberty, and property . . . and other fundamental rights may not be submitted to vote; they depend on the outcome of no elections.
“A citizen’s constitutional rights can hardly be infringed simply because a majority of the people choose that it be.” Lucas v. 44th Gen. Assembly of Colorado, 1964
Chief Justice Warren again had to remind Congress and the Executive that:
“Where rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be no rule making or legislation which would abrogate them.” Miranda v. Arizona, 1966
Chief Justice Marshall continues this theme, pointing to taxation, in his opinion from, The Antelope:
“That it is contrary to the law of nature will scarcely be denied. That every man has a natural right to the fruits of his own labor is generally admitted, and that no other person can rightfully deprive him of those fruits and appropriate them against his will . . .” 23 U.S. 10 Wheat. 66, 120 (1825)
Article I, Section 8, clause 1 gives the Congress the power to tax:
“The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, . . .”
There are those in Congress, past and present, who have expanded this provision to any object and for the most part the Supreme Court has sided with them. This shows the lack of understanding the fundamentals of the Constitution. The prime example is found in the opinion written by Chief Justice John Roberts in N.F.I.B. v. Sibelius, (ACA). Here Roberts makes several conclusions about taxation in an attempt to make the AHA constitutional:
“The Federal Government may enact a tax on an activity that it cannot authorize, forbid, or otherwise control.”
This is inconsistent with the language of the Constitution. For some unknown reason the Court relies on Wickard v. Lisburn (1942) allowing Congress to tax and regulate “back yard gardens.” The government relied upon the Commerce clause to support the individual mandate penalty imposed upon those who did not enroll in a health insurance plan. Roberts rejected that and legislated the individual mandate as a “tax” reasoning:
“The individual mandate forces individuals into commerce precisely because they elected to refrain from commercial activity. Such a law cannot be sustained under a clause authorizing Congress to ‘regulate Commerce.’”
So in order to make the ACA constitutional, in his thinking:
“The Affordable Care Act’s requirement that certain individuals pay a financial penalty for not obtaining health insurance may reasonably be characterized as a tax. Because the Constitution permits such a tax, it is not our role to forbid it, or to pass upon its wisdom or fairness.”
After all of that the Court forgets the fundamental principles of the Common law that applies to taxation and other form of legislation directed at the People. Article I, Section 8, clause 1 must be read in the light of the Common law and the natural rights of the People, recalling the expressions of Chief Justice Warren and Justice Matthews in that the natural rights of the People, the Sovereigns, are not the object of government legislation. If the States are not going to step up, then the People must assume “among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the laws of nature and of nature’s God entitle them, . . .”
“This case involves a cancer in our body politic. It is a measure of the disease which afflicts us. . . . Those who already walk submissively will say there is no cause for alarm. But submissiveness is not our heritage. The First Amendment was designed to allow rebellion to remain as our heritage. The Constitution was designed to keep government off the backs of the people. . . . [T]he America once extolled as the voice of liberty heard around the world no longer is cast in the image which Jefferson and Madison designed, but more in the Russian image, . . .” Justice Douglas, dissenting Laird v. Tatum, 1972
Let the words of Thomas Paine be our strength:
“I once felt all that kind of anger, which a man ought to feel, against the mean principles that are held by the Tories; A noted one, who kept a tavern at Amboy, was standing at his door, with a pretty a child in his hand, about eight or nine years old, as most I ever saw, and after speaking his mind as freely as he thought was prudent, finished with this unfatherly expression, ‘Well, give me peace in my day.’ Not a man lives on the Continent but fully believes that a separation must some time or other finally take place, and a generous parent would have said, ‘if there must be trouble, let it be in my day, that my child may have peace.”