The American Revolution Revisted
24. Jul, 2009 
22 Comments
by Timothy Baldwin, Esq.
From Chuck Baldwin: My son, Tim, writes today’s column. He is an attorney who received his Juris Doctor degree from Cumberland School of Law in Birmingham, Alabama. He is a former prosecutor for the Florida State Attorney’s Office and now owns his own private law practice. He is married to the former Miss Jennifer Hanssen.
Let’s be honest, America is facing the same legal, moral and ethical questions that our Founding generation did, especially regarding the issue of “Who Is Sovereign in the United States.” For our Founders, they fought, bled and died on the principles that no man or government has the right to rule over others contrary to their agreement (i.e. compact, constitution) and contrary to the principles of natural law as revealed in the Creation of God; that all men are born in nature with the power to govern themselves; and that no Sovereign government, established lawfully by the consent of we the people, can be usurped and controlled by any other entity. Thus, today in America, the question once again comes down to “Who is Sovereign in the United States?”
Today, there are 3 basic options for “Who is Sovereign in the United States”: (1) the Federal government, (2) the State governments or (3) We the People. I feel confident in stating that most contemporary Americans believe that the answer to this critical question is the Federal government–especially as it concerns any practical effect on the power of and over government. For years, Americans have been brainwashed though public education, major media networks and politicians that ALL federal laws are the “supreme law of the land” and that no state law or action to the contrary is valid, citing Article 6, paragraph 2 of the US Constitution as their “irrefutable” proof. Of course they are completely wrong: American ideology and legal fact states that sovereignty rests with “we the people.” However, the question must be more narrowly defined.
That is, does the sovereign power of we the people rest with all the people in the nation as one body, or does the power rest with the people THROUGH the respective States? The answer to this question cannot be overstated, because if the sovereign power rests with we the people collectively as one body, then the States have absolutely no power and at the ratification of the US Constitution, the States lost all powers originally granted to them by their respective sovereigns (the people of that State). To the contrary, if Sovereignty rests within or through their respective States, then the States conversely have more power than what is being admitted today by the “Centralists” of our day.
Through an honest study of the history and the context of the Articles of Confederation, the US Constitution, the Constitutional Convention and subsequent Ratification debates, the Federalist Papers, the Anti-Federalist Papers, the rulings of subsequent US Supreme Court Rulings and the writings of political philosophers and statesmen of the 1700s and 1800s, the conclusion is undeniable and clear: We the People are the Sovereigns of the States respectively and of the States United through our respective States.
Thus, the issue is not who is Sovereign, because we know that We the People are sovereign in the US and that the Sovereigns of each State have never ceded to the Federal government any power not expressly granted to it by the Compact (the US Constitution). But rather, the issue is one of JURISDICTION: in other words, who has the power to act on behalf of and in compliance with the Sovereign? The issue of jurisdiction is so important because it acknowledges that since the Sovereign has “paramount authority” in government, any powers that are granted from the Sovereign to government are to remain within that grant of authority. Put another way, the States can no more grant authority to the Federal government against the will of the Sovereign–the people–than the Executive branch of the Federal government can give to the Judiciary branch the powers that we the people granted to it alone. To deny that such a grant exists or conversely to ignore the limitations placed on the governments by the Sovereign is to suggest that tyranny is a lawful act and that it must be complied with. America’s founders would have considered such a political theory to be treasonous. Do we the people think so seriously of the matter? According to recent events, the answer to this question will likely be answered sooner than later.
As some of you may know, several states have and are passing legislation regarding the independence and sovereignty of the people of their respective states. More specifically, the states of Tennessee and Montana have passed “Firearms Freedom Acts,” which have become law and which reaffirm their Sovereignty under the 10th Amendment of the US Constitution. This law states that any firearms that are made, sold and bought in that state are NOT subject to the Federal regulations of firearms, because they are inherently internal affairs, which exempt them from the commerce clause of the US Constitution.
As you would imagine, the Federal government, through its agency, the Department of Justice, did not take too kindly to Tennessee’s assertion of jurisdiction over this matter and position that the federal laws did not apply to the subject matter at hand. This federal opposition has become known through the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF), whereby they informed the firearms licensees in an “open letter” in Tennessee that the recently enacted law (Firearms Freedom Act) does not apply and is void and that they (the firearms licensees) must still obey and submit to the federal laws, regardless of the State’s statute. (See here)
This ATF response tells us the following about the federal government’s ideology of Sovereignty: (1) the federal government does not recognize the lawful and independent jurisdiction of the Sovereigns of Tennessee to operate their internal affairs as they deem proper and fitting; (2) the Sovereigns of Tennessee do not possess lawful jurisdiction to govern themselves through constitutional means; (3) the federal government has the power and authority to control the internal affairs of all States, as they deem fit. Bottom line, the Federal government is Sovereign. With their theory in mind, however, what commodity, what relationship, what contract, what service, or what molecule in this entire country would not be subject to their control and power?
This issue is the very same reason why the Colonists declared their independence from Great Britain in 1776 and why Great Britain declared the Colonies to be in a state of rebellion against the government. The conflict was in fact the application of their Constitution: whether it be a “living” constitution or whether it be “fundamental laws” based upon the intent and will of the people. The fact is, it was the Great-Britain-view of their constitution verses the American-view of their constitution that caused the conflict between the crown and the colonies. One historian summarizes the conflict this way:
“The contrast cannot be too strongly insisted upon. [The colonists], on the one hand, believed that the British Constitution was fixed by ‘the law of God and nature,’ and founded in the principles of law and reason so that Parliament could not alter it, but [Great Britain believed] that ‘the constitution of this country has been always in a moving state, either gaining or losing something,’ and ‘there are things even in Magna Charta which are not constitutional now’ and others which an act of Parliament might change. Between two such conceptions of the powers of government compromise was difficult to attain . . . Such differences in ideals were as important causes of a breaking-up of the empire [of Great Britain] as more concrete matters like oppressive taxation.” (Claude Halstead Van Tyne, The Causes of the War of Independence, Volume 1, [University of Michigan, Houghton Mifflin Company, 1922], 235, 237).
Indeed, the issues of taxation during the 1760s and 1770s were only fruits of the underlying issue, and that is, who is Sovereign in America. According to Great Britain, the government had the power to impose its will on the people of America despite the will of the colonies and despite the natural laws governing the compact between the English people and their government. In other words, the government believed that their constitution was “living,” giving the government power to impose its will on the people, without the people’s consent. The colonists, however, saw the matter to be a usurpation of their God-given right to be governed by their consent and in compliance with their constitution. The end result: the Sovereigns in each colony seceded from the empire of Great Britain because of Great Britain’s refusal to follow their constitution.
Do Sovereigns throughout our States United not see the significance of the issue we are facing today? Are we so blind to history that we cannot compare this scenario to the very scenarios that led to the American Revolution? Are we so ignorant as to the intents and purposes of the US Constitution? Consider that the “supreme laws of the land” were never meant to be carte blanche powers of the Federal government, but instead federal laws were expressly limited by the terms of the compact between and for the States, found in the Constitution. This concept of “supreme law of the land” was expressed by a founding father, whom many would consider to be a “centralist” in belief, Alexander Hamilton, in Federalist Paper #27:
“[T]hat the laws of the Confederacy [meaning, the United States of America--yes, even Hamilton, along with many other founders, such as George Washington, called the US Constitution a Confederacy, because they knew that the nature and character of the compact of the US Constitution did not change from the Articles of Confederation] as to the ENUMERATED and LEGITIMATE objects of its jurisdiction, will become the SUPREME LAW of the land, to the observance . . . in each State, will be bound by the sanctity of an oath. Thus the legislatures, courts, and magistrates, of the respective members, will be incorporated into the operation of the national government AS FAR AS ITS JUST AND CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY EXTENDS.”
Hamilton’s legal position concerning the limited power of the federal government and the “supreme law of the land” was the consensus of the founders, the States and we the people. Nowhere in America’s founding was there the notion that the supreme laws of the land were anything contrary to the compact FOR the States. The supreme laws of the land are simply those “fundamental laws” that we the people have created and imposed upon the government to follow and uphold.
Of course, the question has been raised over the past 150 years of “who has the power to determine whether or not the Federal government has usurped their constitutional authority?” The popular answer is (wrongfully), the US Supreme Court. God forbid that the Sovereigns of each State must wait and rely on 9 federal judges to make rulings of this nature before a State would have any legal rights or justification to act in accordance with the will of their Sovereigns. Indeed, the ATF interpreted the Constitution unilaterally without the opinion of the US Supreme Court and without opinion or order denied the constitutionality of Tennessee’s Firearms Freedom Act. The Sovereigns in each state have the same power, and the historical and legal evidence is plentiful. Consider Thomas Jefferson’s position:
“[T]he States should be watchful to note every material usurpation on their rights; denounce them as they occur in the most peremptory terms; to protest against them as wrongs to which our present submission shall be considered, not as acknowledgments or precedents of right, but as a temporary yielding to the lesser evil, until their accumulation shall overweigh that of separation.” (Thomas Jefferson and John P. Foley, ed., The Jeffersonian Cyclopedia, A Comprehensive Collection of the Views of Thomas Jefferson, [New York and London: Funk & Wagnalls Co., 1900], 133)
I will not attempt to persuade the reader at this point on the fallacious position that only the US Supreme Court can make a determination of constitutional actions. However, for those who would argue that the US Supreme Court is in fact the only legal means by which a State can say “no” to the federal government, then I believe that such a person has reached the point of voluntary slavery, and such a person is dangerous to the concepts of federalism, American-sovereignty, and constitutional limits and freedom, as expressed by thousands of the most influential men in our history. And such a person has accepted only those political means of redress whereby the Sovereigns of each State drudge through the treacherous mud of tyranny and get absolutely nowhere.
What we are seeing today, and have seen for over 100 years in America, is the usurpation of the federal government over Sovereignty–we the people–and over Jurisdiction–the States. While this article cannot begin to expound in depth the true character and nature of the US Constitution, a study of history reveals that the US Constitution was an agreement between the Sovereigns of each State whereby they acceded to give up only certain parts of their power for the “more perfect union” of the people within those States. As with any sovereign people or government, accession may be limited to whatever means and ways necessary to protect the freedom of that society. This is in fact what the Colonists did in 1776 when declaring independence from Great Britain, what the States did in 1781 when ratifying the Articles of Confederation, and what the States did in 1787 when ratifying the US Constitution. It was the Sovereigns, through their respective States, who declared their natural rights under God, who secured their natural rights through independence from governments and who expressed that any act outside of their consent is tyranny.
When this recognition resounds in the hearts and minds of the people, as our Declaration of Independence states, “it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.” Do you really think after only 11 years from the signing of the Declaration of Independence that those same people who risked everything for independence from those “living-constitutionalists” in Great Britain and who believed in the principles seen in the Articles of Confederation would have completely renounced their understanding of a Confederacy and Federalism and would have resigned the same and delegated all of their powers that they fought and died to secure for each State and for their citizens? If you think so silly a notion, you severely impose injustice upon the intelligence and intentions of our founders.
However, the record is clear that the Sovereigns of each State never ceded to the federal government powers not expressly vested to it and never waived the ability to reclaim that power through their proper channels–the States–the same channels by which the US Constitution was ratified. Consider the Sovereigns’ voice in the State of Virginia in 1787:
“We the delegates of the people of Virginia . . . Do, in the name and in behalf of the people of Virginia, declare and make known, that the powers granted under the constitution, being derived from the people of the United States, may be resumed by them whensoever the same shall be perverted to their injury or oppression, and that every power not granted thereby, remains with them and at their will; that therefore no right, of any denomination, can be cancelled, abridged, restrained or modified by the congress, by the senate or house of representatives acting in any capacity, by the president or any department, or officer of the United States, EXCEPT IN THOSE INSTANCES IN WHICH POWER IS GIVEN BY THE CONSTITUTION FOR THOSE PURPOSES.” (Emphasis added.)
However, the Federal government today does not recognize the Sovereignty in the people of the respective states; it does not recognize the respective States’ jurisdiction over all matters not expressly delegated to the federal government; and it does not seem to acknowledge State Sovereignty under the 10th amendment of the US Constitution. Given their evident intent and purposes to continually grow in power and to continually oppress and suppress the sovereignty of we the people, against our respective states, the question becomes, how will they be made to understand this? It is of course up to the Sovereigns in each state to answer this question. And we see the answers arriving through State laws such as the Firearms Freedom Act.
The time has come in America where to be free necessarily means to resist status quo and federal usurpation and to actively change the course and philosophy being shoved down our throats. There really is no middle ground any more. This is not a matter of politics anymore. This is not a matter of Republican and Democrat. This is a matter of FREEDOM, as much so as were the matters of 1775 and 1776. It is staring you in the face, daring you to make a move. May we never be guilty of causing, whether by our apathy, indifference, laziness or comfort, this nation to lose the freedoms that our founders attempted to secure with infinite pains and labors. We the people must once again reassert our Sovereignty in this country and the States must recognize and act upon their God-ordained role as Freedom protectors and tyranny resisters.
© 2009 Chuck Baldwin – All Rights Reserved
If you enjoyed this post:
Click Here to Get the Free Tenth Amendment Center Newsletter,
However, for those who would argue that the US Supreme Court is in fact the only legal means by which a State can say “no” to the federal government, then I believe that such a person has reached the point of voluntary slavery,…
Well, you know, the thirteenth amendment mentions only involuntary servitude. It doesn’t say anything about the nonexistence of voluntary slaves in America. And Lord knows we have a bunch of ‘em, just the way the federal government likes it.
That was a good article!
Hey, Chuck! What are you doing copyrighting Tim’s work? (Just kidding…)
This was a good read…..
The tendency of centralized power is always to aggrandize power, to draw to itself more and more. Beyond the American Revolution, the *Magna Carta Libertatum* itself was a resistance, a revolt against such aggrandizement. These aggrandizements are much easier to see, though, because they were concentrated in one man each time, George III in the first instance, John in the earlier instance.
Today, this power grabbing occurs across the spectrum of federal action, and it’s a colossal organization. From the BATFE to TSA and even to DHHS, The People are instructed from on high as to how to behave, how to be compliant. High school civics is either irrelevant or drowned in the importance of the role of the federal government.
I’d never before read or heard of the Jeffersonian quote noted above:
“[T]he States should be watchful to note every material usurpation on their rights; denounce them as they occur in the most peremptory terms; to protest against them as wrongs to which our present submission shall be considered, not as acknowledgments or precedents of right, but as a temporary yielding to the lesser evil, until their accumulation shall overweigh that of separation.”
but I won’t forget it. We should all remind everyone we can of it. Those that are at least willing to consider that rights are not actually “granted by the federal government.”
More than anything, what I would like to know now is: What is the plan of action if we want anything to change? Now I want Chuck, any of you readers, or anyone, to recommend DOING something effective about all of this!
“Now I want Chuck, any of you readers, or anyone, to recommend DOING something effective about all of this!”
You, first, Keith!
Jeff,
Great thought. Believe me, if I were creative enough to have ideas I’d share them. That’s why I admire the writers like Time here, and the activists like the organizers of this website. I live in a state which, while not Massachusetts, is especially liberal, with an entrenched congressional delegation perfectly happy to have government flow out from the Potomac zip codes to the rest of fly-over country, and a Governor who, governing a major hunting state, has now twice vetoed concealed carry passed by a huge legislative majority (which, at least with some honor, fell only a single vote shy of overriding). Bottom line for me is that I think I can be more effective supporting Montana, Tenn, Wyoming, even Colorado at this stage, while momentum builds, than effecting any significant change locally.
Tim here, at least says it like I’ve felt it for a long time, and I will be sharing his column, at least generating awareness.
But it doesn’t feel very powerful.
That’s why I’m soliciting additional suggestions!
Oh, I know, Keith. Believe it or not, we are all struggling for ideas, just like you.
What might prove itself more important is not “what might rationally occur,” but rather “whether enough support and outrage will be experienced by enough people to force something to occur, whether or not it is rational.”
Sometimes, irrational actions lead to rational results.
Gov. Rick Perry, of Texas, speaks out against ObamaCare, alluding to potential nullification under the 10th.
http://www.star-telegram.com/804/story/1504240.html
Jeff, Excellent article on Perry’s stance. I was tickled by the journalist’s coverage: “Perry heartily backed an unsuccessful resolution in this year’s legislative session that would have affirmed the belief that Texas has sovereignty under the 10th Amendment over all powers not otherwise granted to the federal government.”
Teh resolution would have affirmed the belief … kind of like affirming the opinion.
Hey, reasonable people differ, and after all, maybe the 10th is a little murky over whether the states actually retained any rights at all. It was so long ago. The world is a different place. Things change. We’re expanding the federal government for the sake of the children’s health care!
Yep. Keith. Regarding the vast expansion of SCHIP, costing billions, I am convinced it was either a big scam or improvident. Why commit all those resources to insuring those who don’t need it? You have lots of people in their 50’s and 60’s who are providers for their families and are not insured. THAT is where to spend the money if they just HAVE to furnish health care from our tax dollars. I am not so sure it “was for the children.” It was more likely for the insurance carriers and the politicians.
I have a suggestion. Solidarity is key to success and the People must stand up and exercise their Sovereignty en masse and in unity, without the Republicans, any other party leaders, or some talking head talk show host leading the way.
It may seem dorky, but I guarantee it will work if enough Patriots will do more than just fwd the latest “feel good email” or whine on a blog here and there. I just learned of this site. It looks great. Sounds great.
Now the question is will it DO great?
I started my own site with a plan of action. Phase 2 depends on the success of phase 1. Without the masses ACTING together in Solidarity, our words are empty and fall to the ground.
http://www.fracamerica.org stands for Freedom of Religion, Arms, and Commerce in America. Will you join this grassroots call to action, or look down the nose at it waiting for something better?
Join the fight before it’s too late.
Thanks for your paticipation and helping get the word out.
Jeff
Write this down: Any unpopular movement destined otherwise to failure is always claimed to be “for the children.” How do you think the Oklahoma lottery was finally established in 2004 after it failed innumerable times before? Here’s how: (1) they promised to improve public education in Oklahoma via lottery dollars, and (2) they grossly overestimated how much annual ‘education’ revenue would be derived from the lottery, to the point that in five years combined we still haven’t come close to collecting the amount that was projected by the ‘experts’ annually. And (3) the assumption was that all other modes of collecting school revenues would at very least remain equal. But, of course, that isn’t quite the way the world works, which most Oklahoma fifth graders could have told the mass of the voting public beforehand.
Re: Ideas. There may be other ways but I suggest that first we work on our state legislatures. Most of those folks still have to work somewhere for a living and haven’t quite yet been elevated to the professional political class status; at least not in most states. And they’re a lot closer to the people they represent than those we send to Washington. Second, work on our elected representatives and senators. If they won’t support our efforts then actively work to defeat them and let them know it. I realize that’s been tried and hasn’t worked very well on many occassions but I think we still have to make the effort. And, talk to family, friends and neighbors who will listen and support the organizations that are trying to take a stand. I personally have become much more vocal and involved in the past few years than I’ve ever been before. I believe that in the end, it’s going to have to come down to the states collectively taking a strong stand. I believe that if they will and stand toe to toe with the feds if necessary, the feds will begin to back off. But, I don’t think most states legislatures and governors are prepared to do that yet. I think most are waiting to see what happens if a confrontation erupts between the few that are standing up and the feds. If the states make a serious effort and fail and the only choice we’re left with is subservience to an increasingly out of control and oppresive federal government then maybe secession, which I oppose, is a logical next step. After all, that’s what our Founders eventually felt obligated to do after many years of unsuccessfully trying to find a way to reconcile their differences with the British government. Personally, I think that’s a good crowd to be associated with.
Jeff,
Thanks for posting the link to the article above. I just got around to reading it a few minutes ago, and, just to be honest with you I’ll have to get back to it later because I only got this far in reading the article,
[P]erry said his first hope is that Congress will defeat the plan, which both Perry and Davis described as “Obama Care.” But should it pass, Perry predicted that Texas and a “number” of states might resist the federal health mandate.
which prompts me to ask this question of all interested parties:
Why the need to take a ‘wait-and-see’ approach to this. I predict that even if the ‘healthcare’ bill is defeated this go-round, that we’re only putting off the inevitable. And seeing as how this is most definitely the case, shouldn’t we be doing some proactive work at the state level rather than simply reacting to whatever it is the federal government is going to do to us next, once done? My view is that this has to become, at some point, a more proactive (or preemptive) kind of a strategy. And there’s no time like the present, as they say. What do the rest of you think?
Great article and great ideas. As someone else commented, residing in a “liberal” State (in my case New Jersey) there is a difficult, if not impossible challenge of protecting our sovereign rights, as well as repelling federal intrustion into State affairs. The NJ State government (the most corrupt in the nation) will offer no solace or comfort (either the Governor or Legislature) to its people, since NJ is a micro-cosm of the failed federalist, centralist liberal experiement. Change can now only be truly effected from “the people”
From: THE DEBATES IN THE CONVENTION OF THE STATE OF PENNSYLVANIA, ON THE
ADOPTION OF THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTION.:
“There necessarily exists, in every government, a power from which there is no appeal, and which, for that reason, may be termed supreme, absolute, and uncontrollable. Where does this power reside? To this question writers on different governments will give different answers. Sir William Blackstone will tell you, that in Britain the power is lodged in the British Parliament; that the Parliament may alter the form of the government; and that its power is absolute, without control. The idea of a constitution, limiting and superintending the operations of legislative authority, seems not to have been accurately understood in Britain. There are, at least, no traces of practice conformable to such a principle. The British constitution is just what the British Parliament pleases. When the Parliament transferred legislative authority to Henry VIII., the act transferring could not, in the strict acceptation of the term, be called unconstitutional.
To control the power and conduct of the legislature, by an overruling constitution, was an improvement in the science and practice of government reserved to the American states.
Perhaps some politician, who has not considered with sufficient accuracy our political systems, would answer that, in our governments, the supreme power was vested in the constitutions. This opinion approaches a step nearer to the truth, but does not reach it. The truth is, that, in our governments, the supreme, absolute, and uncontrollable power remains in the people. As our constitutions are superior to our legislatures, so the people are superior to our constitutions. Indeed, the superiority, in this last instance, is much greater; for the people possess over our constitutions control in act, as well as right.
The consequence is, that the people may change the constitutions whenever and however they please. This is a right of which no positive institution can ever deprive them.
These important truths, sir, are far from being merely speculative. We, at this moment, speak and deliberate under their immediate and benign influence. To the operation of these truths we are to ascribe the scene, hitherto unparalleled, which America now exhibits to the world — a gentle, a peaceful, a voluntary, and a deliberate transition from one constitution of government to another. In other parts of the world, the idea of revolutions in government is, by a mournful and an indissoluble association, connected with the idea of wars, and all the calamities attendant on wars. But happy experience teaches us to view such revolutions in a very different light — to consider them only as progressive steps in improving the knowledge of government, and increasing the happiness of society and mankind.
Oft have I marked, with silent pleasure and admiration, the force and prevalence, through the United States, of the principle that the supreme power resides in the people, and that they never part with it. It may be called the panacea in politics. There can be no disorder in the community but may here receive a radical cure. If the error be in the legislature, it may be corrected by the constitution; if in the constitution, it may be corrected by the people. There is a remedy, therefore, for every distemper in government, if the people are not wanting to themselves; if they are wanting to themselves, there is no remedy. From their power, as we have seen, there is no appeal; of their error there is no superior principle of correction.”
Great read, thanks.
Man, this is great! I want to see some REAL head-butting now between States vs. Fed over the Firearms issue. Who has the next move now, Tennessee? Provoke something!
And I don’t mind seeing the states lose, at first. Another arrogant federal claim on an issue that has now become so high-profile, may finally inflame an apathetic population into taking action on the crucial issue of restoring the proper balance of state vs. fed power. Look what’s happening with health care for example (as of 1Aug09) and the once silent majority that is no longer silent!
Of course it would be even better to see the States win, at first, because nothing breeds success like success, keep the ball rolling!
Hamilton, FP 28: “Power being almost always the rival of power, the general government will at all times stand ready to check the usurpations of the state governments, and these will have the same disposition towards the general government. The people, by throwing themselves in either scale, will infallibly make it preponderate. If their rights are invaded by either, they can make use of the other as the instrument of redress.”
JoeSwiss – seems there’s a lot of issues that are going to be coming up. Whether it’s health care, gun rights, federal drug laws, national id cards or any number of unconstitutional national laws – people are recognizing that they can stand up on a state level and say no!
Mr. Boldin,
Were you aware that the health care act contains provision for a national health care card? This card will allow the government to access to your financial information in order to determine how much you must pay as well to take money in any dispute over what the government says you owe for your care. As far as I am aware, there is no opt out option to keep your medical information from being included in this national medical database.
On October the 6th of 1917, at the beginning of America’s involvement in World War I, Congress passed a Trading with the Enemy Act empowering the government to take control over any and all commercial, monetary or business transactions conducted by enemies or allies of enemies within our continental borders. That Act also defined the term “enemy” and excluded from that definition citizens of the United States.
Citizens of the United States were not enemies of their country in 1917, and the transactions conducted by citizens within this country were not considered to be enemy transactions. But in looking again at Section 2 of the Act of March 9, 1933, we can see that the phrase excluding wholly domestic transactions has been removed from the amended version and replaced with “by any person within the United States or anyplace subject to the jurisdiction thereof”.
The people of the United States were now subject to the power of the Trading; with the Enemy Act of October 6, 1917, as amended. For the purposes of all commercial, monetary and, in effect, all business transactions. We, the People became the same as the enemy, and were treated no differently. There was no longer any distinction.
It is important here to note that, in the Acts of October 6, 1917 and March 9, 1933, it states: “during times of war or during any other national emergency declared by the President”. So we now see that the war powers not only included a period of war, but also a period of “national emergency”.
Remember your Constitution? “Congress shall have the power to declare war, grant letters of marque and reprisal and make all rules concerning the captures on the land and the water of the enemies,” all rules.
If that be the case, let us look at the memorandum of law that now covers trading with the enemy, the “Memorandum of American Cases and Recent English Cases on The Law of Trading With the Enemy”, remembering that we are now the same as the enemy. In this memorandum, we read:
“Every species of intercourse with the enemy is illegal. This prohibition is not limited to mere commercial intercourse.”
This is the case of The Rapid (1814).
Additionally,
“No contract is considered as valid between enemies, at least so far as to give them a remedy in the courts of either government, and they have, in the language of the civil law, no ability to sustain a persona stand in judicio”.
This is why I think that if We The People are considered enemies of the United States as quoted above, then the contract between the U.S. and it’s citizens requiring us to pay income taxes should NOT BE A VALID CONTRACT.
The reason the Constitution is invalid is because the Govt keeps the U.S. in a constant declared “State of Emergency” thereby voiding the Constitution.
This is the short version. The longer version with links to verify this is on my blog.