Something I came across in an email today... While it is clear that everyones suggestions to this thread are well intentioned, it appears that the solutions revolve around the national governments administrative course for remedy. Following any USC Code or Title, establishes a NATIONAL status into which all participants enter voluntarily -Since ignorance is no excuse, one can easily fall into the national suffrage and its responsibilities. I suggest this link for more info: I further suggest looking up the definitions for national v. federal in a Blacks Law Dictionary 4th Edition (1968) ALSO... Most people are not aware that there can be no vote or election which could take away their fundamental rights: ...fundamental rights may not be submitted to vote; they depend on the outcome of no elections. West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette - 319 U.S. 623 AND... The authorities we have cited show that labor is a doom, and if submitted to with fidelity, secures a blessing to the human family. The obligation to labor being imperious, confers a right to labor, which right is property; and it cannot be withdrawn or destroyed by arbitrary legislation without a violation of natural right. This right is a social right, and constitutions have been made to secure it from invasion. No state of the American Union can deprive a man of his title by arbitrary edict; and arbitrary institutions to limit, depress, impair or to take away this right, cannot be favored or maintained. Slaughterhouse Case, 16 Wall. 36 (1872) AND... Every man has a natural right to the fruits of his own labor, as generally admitted; and no other person can rightfully deprive him of those fruits, and appropriate them against his will... The Antelope, 23 U.S. 66 Furthermore, most people DO NOT KNOW that they have THE RIGHT TO BE LET ALONE: The makers of our Constitution undertook to secure conditions favorable to the pursuit of happiness... They sought to protect Americans in their beliefs, their thoughts, their emotions and their sensations. They conferred, as against the Government, THE RIGHT TO BE LET ALONE - the most comprehensive of rights and the right most valued by civilized men. (Emphasis added) Olmstead v. United States, 277 U.S. 438, 478 (1928); Washington v. Harper, 494 U.S. 210 (1990) Therefore, before one joins a hat in hand protest group, one must first realize that ALL LAWS are written under CONTRACTUAL policy for VOLUNTARY participation. In the Land of the Free there can be no compelled association. Because one is FREE to contract, and NOBODY has the right to obstruct or interfere with CONTRACTS, one is FREE to contract in error. Therefore, if one does not know HOW to exit A contract entered under undue influence, by mistake, error, or inadvertence, one is bound to bear the consequences of their own ignorance and the full benefits of being ignorant. Finally, by understanding that Congress has TWO legislative powers, 1) -federal (limited to its objects of jurisdiction), and 2) -national (exclusive and plenary), one should first question the authority under which said law was passed: 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 preliminary inquiry in the case now before the Court, is, by virtue of which of these authorities was the law in question passed? Cohens v. Virginia, 19 U.S. 264, 6 Wheat. 265; 5 L.Ed. 257 (1821) Therefore, The question is not what power the federal government ought to have, but what powers, in fact, have been given by the people... The federal union is a government of delegated powers. It has only such as are expressly conferred upon it, and such as are reasonably to be implied from those granted. In this respect, we differ radically from nations where all legislative power, without restriction or limitation, is vested in a parliament or other legislative body subject to no restriction except the discretion of its members. (Congress) U.S. v. William M. Butler, 297 U.S. 1 (1936), and The power to legislate generally upon life, liberty, and property, as opposed to the power to provide modes of redress against offensive state action, was repugnant to the Constitution. Id., at 15. See also United States v. Reese, 92 U.S. 214, 218 (1876); United States v. Harris, 106 U.S. 629, 639(1883); James v. Bowman, 190 U.S. 127, 139 (1903). Although the specific holdings of these early cases might have been superseded or modified, see, e.g., Heart of Atlanta Motel, Inc. v. United States, 379 U.S. 241 (1964); United States v. Guest, 383 U.S. 745(1966), their treatment of Congress §5 power as corrective or preventive,not definitional, has not been questioned City of Boerne v. Florez-Archbishop of San Antonio 521 U.S. 507 (1997) I hope this helps with the big picture on the issue of law, jurisdiction, and status... I promise to reply to comments and/or suggestions related to this thread. Yours in Truth, M.
Posted on: Sun, 16 Mar 2014 20:48:11 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015