(Perpetual Skepticism & Unassailable Certainty)
A Patriot’s Thoughts by C Francis Habeck on Saturday, May 14, 2011patriot1789
In its 5-4 decision in the case of Kelo v. City of New London, the U.S. Supreme Court changed the law so that any government entity can take your property and give it to another for virtually any reason at all. It can be to improve the “looks” of the area; increase the tax base; move more businesses into an area; not just for “Public” use as stated in the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution
These and other headlines have provoked people into not just complaining but actually getting out and protesting at nationwide “Tea Parties”. That’s wonderful and some have put forth ideas for remedying the problems. Unfortunately, they will fail.
How did we get into this mess?
What’s happening now reminds me of a TV medical show. A patient arrives and a team of doctors start to analyze the symptoms. It’s decided that the patient must have “Disease 1”. Treatment causes one of the following results: The patient gets better; the patient gets worse; no change in condition.
Other symptoms appear. If the patient doesn’t recover the valiant team continues to evaluate and treat the patient until the root cause of the patient’s condition is discovered. The appropriate treatment is administered and: The patient gets better; the patient gets worse; no change in condition. Other symptoms appear.
If they get the treatment to the patient in time the patient gets better; if not, one of the other conditions results because the sickness so weakened the patient that recovery wasn’t possible.
The problem we as Americans face is that the symptoms are being looked at as separate problems instead of as the result of an as yet undiscovered root cause. If we simply continue to treat the symptoms the patient, America, will surely die soon. If we find and treat the root cause the patient may have only a 20% chance of surviving, but even 20% is better than the certainty of death before us if we do nothing about it.
We now go looking for that cause.
Ayn Rand stated in “Philosophy: Who Needs It”, something I think all Americans should read and take to heart. It goes to a problem I see today when people attending institutions of higher learning have their core beliefs challenged and ridiculed.
“[There is a] dangerous little catch phrase which advises you to keep an “open mind.” This is a very ambiguous term—as demonstrated by a man who once accused a famous politician of having “a wide open mind.” That term is an anti-concept: it is usually taken to mean an objective, unbiased approach to ideas, but it is used as a call for perpetual skepticism, for holding no firm convictions and granting plausibility to anything. A “closed mind” is usually taken to mean the attitude of a man impervious to ideas, arguments, facts and logic, who clings stubbornly to some mixture of unwarranted assumptions, fashionable catch phrases, tribal prejudices—and emotions. But this is not a “closed” mind, it is a passive one. It is a mind that has dispensed with (or never acquired) the practice of thinking or judging, and feels threatened by any request to consider anything.
What objectivity and the study of philosophy require is not a passive “open mind,” but an active mind—a mind able and eagerly willing to examine ideas, but to examine them critically. An active mind does not grant equal status to truth and falsehood; it does not remain floating forever in a stagnant vacuum of neutrality and uncertainty; by assuming the responsibility of judgment, it reaches firm convictions and holds to them. Since it is able to prove its convictions, an active mind achieves an unassailable certainty in confrontations with assailants—a certainty untainted by spots of blind faith, approximation, evasion and fear.
It is only with an “active mind” that that we can discuss and resolve the problems we as a nation face today.
In order to understand why we are experiencing so many attacks on our freedoms we must have an understanding of language. We must know what words mean in the context being used. We must also state what authorities are being used to define those words and ideas.
Here are the sources and authorities that I will use in this and any future articles: United States Constitution, various state Constitutions, U.S. Supreme Court & State Supreme Court decisions, Lower Federal Court & Lower State Court decisions, Founding Fathers, U.S. Congress Acts and Reports, U.S. Code, State and Federal laws, Bouvier’s and Black’s Law dictionaries, English dictionary, English Thesaurus
America’s Founding Fathers
When the Founding Fathers gathered at the Constitutional Convention, they did not show up, write the Constitution and leave the next day. It took several months because they disagreed on just about everything. Not all of them wanted a republic; some wanted: a true democracy; a monarchy, a society where the “rich and learned” would rule over those who were poor and/or uneducated (for their (our?) own good of course). The resulting document was a compromise.
One compromise was allowing slavery. It was done to get all the States to stay in the Union. Slavery was put on the back burner but not before a clause was approved that counted the slave population at only three fifths of their actual number. This provision has been cited as proof of the racism of the Founding Fathers but it was to lessen the slave States representation in the House of Representatives and thus their power.
We all often interpret what we read and hear by what we think is being stated but that is not necessarily what the statement means. When those “others” realized they were not going to win, they put seeming innocuous statements into the Constitution that could be fully supported by all but with a darker interpretation that could later be used to implement their type of government.
What is more important is that some seemingly innocuous provisions and terms were used whose meanings at the time were understood and so not well defined in the document. At least one provision was a seed that if properly watered and fertilized could take root and eventually destroy the country. That is what we are looking for in this article.
To find that root cause requires a basic understanding of English rules and usage. When you first started school you were not given a book to read but were taught to identify letters and sounds. You were then taught letter groups and words. You were taught English word usage and sentence structure. All along the way you were taught word meanings. One of the things you found out was that words could have different meanings and sometimes it wasn’t clear as to what the meaning was supposed to be.
United States of Confusion
Let’s look at how words are used and understood. When you see “United States” in a sentence or law you know that it is referring to the country, right? Well maybe not. The U.S. Supreme Court in Hooven & Allison Co. v. Evatt, 324 U.S. 652 (1945) stated;
“The term ‘United States’ may be used in any one of several senses. It may be merely the name of a sovereign occupying the position analogous to that of other sovereigns in the family of nations. It may designate the territory over which the sovereignty of the United States extends, or it may be the collective name of the states which are united by and under the Constitution.”
Note when doing your research on this you will read that most people state something like, “the term United States has three meanings”. The three meanings limit is definitely NOT in the decision. The Court said the term may be used in several senses and lists three but doesn’t limit those senses to three.
So the term “United States” may be (among others): A nation among other nations, as when the United States is represented at the U.N. A singular entity; or the territory over which the sovereignty of the United States extends; (since this is also a singular entity it must mean the areas over which the Federal government has jurisdiction) or The Several States united by the Constitution. A plural term. The term Several States is usually used to denote the 50 separate States in law.
The first definition is easily understood; the second and third are not. Let’s look at the second definition in the U.S. Constitution.
The 14th Amendment, Section 1. “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside…..”
The 14th Amendment states its area of law is “…THE United States, and subject to THE jurisdiction thereof…” The term here is singular, the jurisdiction, or else it would be their jurisdiction, or the jurisdictions. Hence it refers to the territory of the Federal Government. It can be stated also as Congress or the District of Columbia. [note: the use of “The United States” it two ways conveys two different meanings; -the first is related to the territory of the United States, both federal and state lands, in which one might be born, while the second (“the jurisdiction thereof”) refers not to land or territory but to authority. One can’t be born in government authority nor be subject to territory. That jurisdiction is not merely the authority of Congress and its law-writing power, but the executive and judicial authority of the federal government. The Supreme Court and the Attorney General or the President may rightfully consider the constitutionality of statutes passed by Congress, and by their oath to defend the Constitution decide to ignore an Act of Congress which violates it. A.N.]
Remember that the U.S. Constitution and the State Constitutions are contracts in nature and as such should follow the “Four Corners” doctrine. Essentially, if it is not addressed within the four corners of the document it is not addressed and must not be assumed.
“Privileges and immunities clause of the Fourteenth Amendment protects only those rights peculiar to being a citizen of the federal government; it does not protect those rights which relate to state citizenship.” Jones v. Temmer, Federal Supplement, Vol. 829, Page 1227 (1993)
The fourteenth amendment created citizenship of the federal government. This status is a privilege granted by the government
“We have cited these cases for the purpose of showing that the privileges and immunities of citizens of the United States do not necessarily include all the rights protected by the first eight amendments to the Federal Constitution against the powers of the Federal government. They were decided subsequently to the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment…”Maxwell v. Dow, 176 US 598 (1900)
And from the Slaughter-House Cases in 1873; the first clause of the fourteenth amendment was primarily intended to confer citizenship on the Negro race, and secondly to give definitions of citizenship of the United States, and citizenship of the States, and it recognizes the distinction between citizenship of a State and citizenship of the United States by those definitions.
The second clause protects from the hostile legislation of the States the privileges and immunities of citizens of the United States as distinguished from the privileges and immunities of citizens of the States.
The privileges and immunities of citizens of the United States are those which arise out of the nature and essential character of the National government, the provisions of its Constitution, or its laws and treaties made in pursuance thereof; and it is these which are placed under the protection of Congress by this clause of the fourteenth amendment.
So if you are a citizen under the 14th amendment you are not one of “We The People” but under the jurisdiction of the “National government”. Please remember that we are supposed to have a federal government not a national one. The 14th amendment allows the federal government to have it own citizens separated from the protections afforded state Citizens. The 13th Amendment ties in with it. [note: the 14th Amendment makes citizens not only of the United States but also “the State within which they reside”. The citizens of the States are “We The People”.]
The Dred Scott decision
Dred Scott v. Sandford (1857), (see Note 1) was a decision by the United States Supreme Court that ruled that people of African descent imported into the United States and held as slaves, or their descendants—whether or not they were slaves—were not legal persons and could never be citizens of the United States.
The Court spoke of the fact the Constitution could be moved to an African nation and they could use it to deny citizenship to white people. They spoke about the ways and reasons why the government could not make a black man a citizen. I AGREE WITH THAT DECISION!!! Before you burn this paper or delete it from your files let me explain.
When people testify in a courtroom, they swear to: tell the truth, tell the whole truth, and tell nothing but the truth. What is stated must be the truth, the truth with nothing withheld, and the truth with nothing added to it. This is a foundation of our judicial system. However please note that the judges, lawyers and prosecutors do not swear to this. While this does not mean necessarily that all they say are lies, it does mean that they do not have to tell the whole truth. They can bend or omit part of the truth to make a point.
Sleight of hand
In the Dred Scott decision, the court stated the since he was not a citizen of Missouri the court did not have jurisdiction. However the court then went on with the case. Why? The court began by waving the neutrality of race in the Constitution and stating that an African nation could adopt the Constitution entirely and maintain in their laws that White people could not be citizens. This argument was to distract everyone from an important point. The U.S. Government did not have the authority to make anyone a citizen!!!
People were Citizens of a State and as such were considered Citizens of the United States. They were generally considered “citizens of the United States” as a consequence of State citizenship or the fact that they were an area not yet made into a State. State citizenship was superior and sought after as evidenced by the fact that people in the territories gathered together and petitioned Congress to declare them States. If there was no difference in citizenship there was no urgency in becoming a State.
Remember “…the privileges and immunities of citizens of the United States do not necessarily include all the rights protected by the first eight amendments to the Federal Constitution against the powers of the Federal government..” Maxwell v. Dow, 176 US 598 (1900)
The U.S. government (Congress) under Article 1, Section. 8 of the Constitution “….To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;…” This grants the power to make uniform naturalization laws but does not give Congress the right to have citizens. Just as your local government has the power to make uniform building codes but they don’t build your house or live in it.
The Court could have mentioned that Congress could modify the law to allow Negroes to be citizens; or could have mentioned that in at least ten States, Negroes could vote. If that did not show that they were considered Citizens of that state, what does? Because of the Dred Scott decision, Congress looked for ways to “rectify” the problem, again without resorting to their constitutional power to make naturalization laws.
The 13th Amendment
Section 1. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime where of the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction. The 13th Amendment states its area of law is “…the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.” Since the United States is plural due to their jurisdiction the Amendment means the Several States. In short the amendment abolishes slavery which is a good thing. Or did it?
Consider this scenario: John and Mary, your children, are playing in the backyard. You come to the door and yell, “John, you come in here right now.” What did you very explicitly tell John? He must come in right now, correct? Of course you did. But what did you implicitly tell Mary just as strongly? She does NOT have to come in. This is a very important fact when dealing with language. Stating one thing can sometimes also state the opposite to others.
This problem of explicitly forbidding one thing and implicitly allowing others is common when people write laws to ban certain behaviors they find objectionable. They find a need to continually amend the law to cover more and more behaviors implicitly allowed because once you get too specific a lot of things can fall through the cracks. It’s similar to the commercial where a girl is talking to a friend over a “land line” because her parents had forbidden her to use her cell phone since she was grounded. As she stated, “loophole!!!”
Consider this:….Congress wears two hats and operates in two capacities or jurisdictions simultaneously, each of which covers a different and mutually exclusive geographical area: 1. As the municipal government for the District of Columbia and all U.S. territories. All “acts of Congress” or federal statutes passed in this capacity are referred to as “private international law”. This political community is called the “National Government” and it is described in the municipal statutory law for federal territory.
2. As the general government for the states of the Union. All “acts of Congress” or federal statutes passed in this capacity are called “public international law”. This political community is called the “Federal Government” and it is described in the Constitution.
Each of the two capacities above has different types of “citizens” within it and each is a unique and separate “body politic”. Nearly all laws that Congress writes pertain to the first jurisdiction above only. “It is clear that Congress, as a legislative body, exercise two species of legislative power: the one, limited as to its objects, but extending all over the Union: the other, an absolute, exclusive legislative power over the District of Columbia
The term “United States”, unless noted, when singular is equal to the “territory of the Federal Government” or just the “Federal Government” when needed for clarification; when the term is plural it means the “Several States”. We can then substitute “Federal Government” and “Several States” for their respective term of “United States” per the second and third definitions given in Hooven & Allison co. v. Evatt, 324 U.S. 652 (1945).
Why does this concern us now? Let’s look at the 13th Amendment again substituting equal terms to clarify its meaning.
Section 1. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime where of the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the Several States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.
Using our lesson from John and Mary we can state that the 13th Amendment implicitly states that: Both slavery and involuntary servitude can exist within the Federal Government, or any place subject to the jurisdiction thereof.
I have gotten a lot of flak because of this from people indignant over the clear meaning of this amendment. One thing you must remember here is just because the law allows something doesn’t mean it has to either state it or refute it. It would be better to look at our lives and see if we are truly free or not.
Earlier I mentioned the possibility of some additions to the Constitution that at the time seemed logical and clear but the terms were not defined because everyone knew their meanings. One such addition is found in Article 1, Section. 8. The U.S. government (Congress) has the power: “To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, 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;–And 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.”
Since Congress has the power “To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District…”; the courts have held that Congress can do pretty much whatever it wants in the district. Remember, “…the privileges and immunities of citizens of the United States (Congress) do not necessarily include all the rights protected by the first eight amendments to the Federal Constitution against the powers of the Federal government.” Also note that citizens of Congress only have “privileges and immunities of citizens” and not “rights protected by the first eight amendments”.
That may be a concern for folks living in Washington D.C., but what does it have to do with correcting the peoples’ concerns about our runaway government? Plenty. One of the acts Congress passed is the Buck Act. The following is from “The Buck Act” by Richard McDonald. (See note 2) I strongly recommend you read the entire article.
Now, the government knows it cannot tax those state Citizens who live and work outside the territorial jurisdiction of Article 1, Section 8, Clause 17 or Article 4, Section 3, Clause 2 in the U.S. Constitution. So, in 1940, Congress passed the “Buck Act”. In Section 110(e), this Act authorized any department of the federal government to create a “Federal area” for imposition of the “Public Salary Tax Act of 1939”. The rest of the taxing law is found in the Internal Revenue Code. The Social Security Board had already created a “Federal area” overlay. 4 U.S.C.S. Sec. 110(d). The term “State” includes any Territory or possession of the United States.
Thus, the obvious question arises: What is a “Federal area”? A “Federal area” is any area designated by any agency, department, or establishment of the federal government. This includes the Social Security areas designated by the Social Security Administration, any public housing area that has federal funding, a home that has a federal bank loan, a road that has federal funding, and almost everything that the federal government touches through any type of aid. Springfield v. Kenny, 104 N.E. 2d 65 (1951 App.).
Through this mechanism, the federal government usurped the Sovereignty of the People, as well as the Sovereignty of the several states, by creating “Federal areas” within the boundaries of the states under the authority of Article 4, Section 3, Clause 2 (4:3:2) in the federal Constitution, which states:The Congress shall have power…respecting the territory or other property belonging to the United States,…”.
Therefore, all U.S. citizens residing in one of the states of the Union, are classified as property (?), as franchisees of the federal government, and as an “individual entity”. Under the “Buck Act”, the federal government has created a “Federal area” within the boundaries of all the several states. This area is similar to any territory that the federal government acquires through purchase, conquest or treaty, thereby imposing federal territorial law upon all people in this “Federal area”…
There is a lot more proof of that our federal government has been working a long time to control all aspects of out lives. The facts presented here are just the starting point for you to become educated in the enormity of what has happened to our once great nation.
Here are some further things to ponder if you still think we are not owned and controlled by Congress.
In McCulloch v. Maryland, 17 U.S. 316 (1819), a landmark decision by the Supreme Court of the United States, the state of Maryland had attempted to impede operation of a branch of the Second Bank of the United States by imposing a tax on all notes of banks not chartered in Maryland (Wikpedia)
Chief justice Marshall stated, “…the power to tax involves the power to destroy”, the court concluded that the Maryland tax could not be levied against the government. If states were allowed to continue their acts, they would destroy the institution created by federal government…” Following this line of reasoning, a fundamental right can not be taxed since the state could simply raise the tax to the point where you could not afford to exercise that right.
You have a guarantee of freedom of the press, but if the state taxed the press a dollar a word would any survive? No.
The courts have held that no matter what it is called, if the purpose of a law or statute is to raise money it is a tax. It doesn’t matter if it’s called a fee, user fee, entrance fee, parking fee, license or whatever, it’s a tax.
Let’s see your license and registration Note that a license is special. A license if defined in the American Heritage® Dictionary as:
NOUN: Official or legal permission to do or own a specified thing. See Synonyms at permission. A document, plate, or tag that is issued as proof of official or legal permission: a driver’s license.
The Right to Marry
A lot of you reading this have exercised your God-given right to get married. But, if you are exercising a right, why do you need permission from the government to do it? Years ago the government tried to validate it by stating you needed a blood test to prevent spreading disease but that’s not done now. So why do you need a license?
Definitions from Black’s Law Dictionary, 4th Ed: “license” “The permission by competent authority to do an act which without such permission, would be illegal.” “marriage license” “A license or permission granted by public authority to persons who intend to intermarry.”
“Intermarry” is “Miscegenation” : “mixture of races; marriage between persons of different races, as between a white and a Negro.”
Some marriage licenses will actually state that its purpose is for interracial marriage.
“Marriage Certificate”: “An instrument which certifies a marriage, and is executed by the person officiating at the marriage; it is not intended to be signed by the parties, but is evidence of the marriage.
Most of you are not part of a “marriage between persons of different races” so that isn’t the reason for modern marriage licenses. What else? Slaves could be married with permission from their owner(s). Of course all children and property acquired would belong to the owner. As shown before, the 14th amendment made you a citizen of the corporation known as the United States (Congress) and the 13th amendment allows the United States (Washington D.C.) to have slaves and indentured servants without limitation. Want more proof?
Marriage is a civil contract to which there are three parties; the husband, the wife and the state. However, this constitutionally protected parental interest is not wholly without limit or beyond regulation. In fact, the entire familial relationship involves the State. When two people decide to get married, they are required to first procure a license from the State. If they have children of this marriage, they are required by the State to submit their children to certain things, such as school attendance and vaccinations. Furthermore, if at some time in the future the couple decides the marriage is not working, they must petition the State for a divorce. Marriage is a three-party contract between the man, the woman, and the State. Linneman v. Linneman, 1 Ill. App. 2d 48, 50, 116 N.E.2d 182, 183 (1953), citing Van Koten v. Van Koten, 323 Ill. 323, 326, 154 N.E. 146 (1926). The State represents the public interest in the institution of marriage. Linneman, 1 Ill. App. 2d at 50, 116 N.E.2d at 183. [it’s really a two-party contract but with a referee, -like a boxing match, -or a priest who represents the interests of Heaven & society as well]
This public interest is what allows the State to intervene in certain situations to protect the interests of members of the family. The State is like a silent partner in the family who is not active in the everyday running of the family but becomes active and exercises its power and authority only when necessary to protect some important interest of family life.
(There is a huge difference between civil marriage and holy matrimony – Darren Michaels)
Innocent until proven Guilty
You have a lot to consider already but I want to add one more thing. We consider our justice system superior to most others because it is based on the principle of “innocent until proved guilty”. Our system also prevents “double jeopardy” where you can be put on trial more than once for the same crime. Sometimes people are charged in both state and federal courts for the same act. The courts have ruled that this is not double jeopardy. Do you agree?
Fixing the Root Cause
If there is any light to be found here it is this. The 14th Amendment is unconstitutional because it was fraudulently ratified.
After voting on the 13th Amendment, the newly welcomed back states were against the 14th Amendment. So Congress did the only thing they could; they refused to seat the states lawfully elected representatives and then voted on among other things the 14th Amendment. Then to acquire ratification by three quarters of the states, military governors were appointed which usurp the lawful elected offices of Souther states and ratified it in place of the lawfully elected legislatures.
Since the Constitution, (remember that document?) guaranteed the states would not be denied their right of suffrage, the Northern Congressmen violated it and the ratification process violated it as well. As such all subsequent amendments, acts and laws were illegitimate.
On one occasion Judge Ellett of the Utah Supreme Court remarked: “I cannot believe that any court, in full possession of its faculties, could honestly hold that the amendment was properly approved and adopted.” State v. Phillips, Pacific Reporter, 2nd Series, Vol. 540, Page 941, 942 (1975)
Look up: in the Supreme Court for the state of Utah Dyett v. Turner, 439 p2d 266 @ 269, 20 u2d 403 
The non-ratification of the Fourteenth Amendment (judge a.h. ellett)
So the cure for most, if not all, of the problems facing us is repealing the 14th Amendment and specifically making state citizenship paramount and available to all those living in the Several States. There are other things that must be done also but this is the most important. The bad news is I don’t know if the nation can survive the attempt or what the nation will look like after the repeal. Anything less than the repeal will be similar to the proverbial rearranging of deckchairs on the Titanic.
Now you have several major concerns to add to all you currently have. I hope you will investigate the points I have brought up here and help find a way to save our country.
Depending on the emails I receive, hopefully constructive criticism, I will address other signs of the downfall of America and at least help people to be aware of what’s happening even if we don’t change it.
Send comments and suggestions to: email@example.com Donations and support to continue the effort to educate people about the reality of Americans being systematically betrayed and eventually completely enslaved: firstname.lastname@example.org at PayPal.
http://email.glennbeck.com/gb40/c2.php?GNBK/413900000/111208/H/N/V/http://www.glennbeck.com/2012/03/15/must-watch-glenn-declares-i-am-a-man-during-passionate-gbtv-monologue/ edited by A.R. Nash email@example.com