The Constitution is NOT a Suicide Pact

Gary Hunt
Outpost of Freedom
March 30, 2011

Through the process of conditioning (programming), especially in government schools and the press, we have lost sight of what this country really is, and, what it stands for.

Though there have been many nations throughout the history of the world, there is only one that was established, independent of outside source, by the people of that nation.  It was a nation of independent people who had learned to cherish their freedom, primarily established by an absence of control from across the ocean.

They had found, though bound by English laws and English government, that absent a regular imposition of that authority, that they did quite well for themselves, taming a wilderness and establishing a productive society, within the limits imposed by that far away government. They were, for all intents and purposes, the first and only truly free civilized nation.

When that foreign government began to impose upon these people who had developed self-sufficiency, beyond any before them, they resented their treatment as “children” rather than being treated as adults, and true sons of England, with all of the rights enjoyed by Englishmen.

Just eleven years after their separation from the then greatest power on the Earth, they established a government in a form that would best suit them — developed, in part, by the political philosophers that preceded them; in part, from what they had learned from the natives of the land they shared; and, in part from their experiences with the previous government, which bonds they had so recently broken.

This new government was embodied in a document which was then styled, “Constitution for the United States of America”. It was, through conventions in the various states, truly a document approved by “We The People”, as its suggests in its preamble:

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

In this modern day, we have lost sight of the intention of the Framers of that great document. We can however, look to the past to understand just who embodied those “People” who set on forth this greatest venture in self-government that the world has ever seen.

Our best understanding can be found in a Supreme Court decision, rendered in Dred Scott v. Sandford [60 U.S. 393] , in 1856. Chief Justice Taney, who gave the decision of the Court, went into great detail in defining just who those “People” were.

The case hinges on who had standing, as a “citizen of the United States” (prior to the Fourteenth Amendment) to sue in court.  The details of the case is not necessary to understand the following.

The case ended up in the Supreme Court.  In its decision (below), the Court pointed out that Scott had claimed to be a citizen of Missouri, which would give him standing to sue Sandford.  It found that though Scott was not a citizen of Missouri, or of the United States, that standing for the Court to hear the case was based upon the Courts acting on the fact that the question of citizenship was not in the plea that brought the matter before the Court.

Going directly to the Final Decision, given my Justice Taney, we have the Court’s determination of just who was a “citizen of the United Sates:

“The words ‘people of the United States’ and ‘citizens’ are synonymous terms, and mean the same thing.  They both describe the political body who, according to our republican institutions, form the sovereignty, and who hold the power and conduct the Government through their representatives.  They are what we familiarly call the ‘sovereign people,’ and every citizen is one of this people, and a constituent member of this sovereignty.  The question before us is, whether the class of persons described in the plea in abatement compose a portion of this people, and are constituent members of this sovereignty?  We think they are not, and that they are not included, and were not intended to be included, under the word ‘citizens’ in the Constitution, and can therefore claim none of the rights and privileges which that instrument provides for and secures to citizens of the United States.  On the contrary, they were at that time considered as a subordinate and inferior class of beings, who had been subjugated by the dominant race, and, whether emancipated or not, yet remained subject to their authority, and had no rights or privileges but such as those who held the power and the Government might choose to grant them.  “

* * *

The question then arises, whether the provisions of the Constitution, in relation to the personal rights and privileges to which the citizen of a State should be entitled, embraced the negro African race, at that time in this country, or who might afterwards be imported, who had then or should afterwards be made free in any State; and to put it in the power of a single State to make him a citizen of the United States, and endow him with the full rights of citizenship in every other State without their consent? Does the Constitution of the United States act upon him whenever he shall be made free under the laws of a State, and raised there to the rank of a citizen, and immediately clothe him with all the privileges of a citizen in every other State, and in its own courts?

The court think the affirmative of these propositions cannot be maintained.  And if it cannot, the plaintiff in error could not be a citizen of the State of Missouri, within the meaning of the Constitution of the United States, and, consequently, was not entitled to sue in its courts.”

It is true, every person, and every class and description of persons, who were at the time of the adoption of the Constitution recognised as citizens in the several States, became also citizens of this new political body; but none other; it was formed by them, and for them and their posterity, but for no one else.  And the personal rights and privileges guaranteed to citizens of this new sovereignty were intended to embrace those only who were then members of the several State communities, or who should afterwards by birthright or otherwise become members, according to the provisions of the Constitution and the principles on which it was founded.  It was the union of those who were at that time members of distinct and separate political communities into one political family, whose power, for certain specified purposes, was to extend over the whole territory of the United States.  And it gave to each citizen rights and privileges outside of his State which he did not before possess, and placed him in every other State upon a perfect equality with its own citizens as to rights of person and rights of property; it made him a citizen of the United States.

* * *

“It becomes necessary, therefore, to determine who were citizens of the several States when the Constitution was adopted.  And in order to do this, we must recur to the Governments and institutions of the thirteen colonies, when they separated from Great Britain and formed new sovereignties, and took their places in the family of independent nations.  We must inquire who, at that time, were recognised as the people or citizens of a State, whose rights and liberties had been outraged by the English Government; and who declared their independence, and assumed the powers of Government to defend their rights by force of arms.

In the opinion of the court, the legislation and histories of the times, and the language used in the Declaration of Independence, show, that neither the class of persons who had been imported as slaves, nor their descendants, whether they had become free or not, were then acknowledged as a part of the people, nor intended to be included in the general words used in that memorable instrument.

Now, clearly, it is those who initiated the fight for independence that are of the class recognized by the Constitution as “citizens of the United States”.  Many have pointed out that one of the first to “die for the cause” was a negro named Crispus Attucks, who was shot to death in the “Boston Massacre”, in 1770.  This, however, in the eyes of the Court, does not qualify him as one of the people — for which the country was intended.

Though the decision of the Court continues to give examples of just how the Court perceived this relationship, I would prefer to not include too many more of the over one-hundred and ten thousand words in the Decision.  There are some words, however, that warrant our attention in fully understanding what was intended by the founding of this nation, and so I will provide these few paragraphs:

“The language of the Declaration of Independence is equally conclusive:

It begins by declaring that, ‘when in the course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth the separate and equal station to which the laws of nature and nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect for the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.’

It then proceeds to say: ‘We hold these truths to be self-evident: that all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights; that among them is life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness; that to secure these rights, Governments are instituted, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.‘

The general words above quoted would seem to embrace the whole human family, and if they were used in a similar instrument at this day would be so understood.  But it is too clear for dispute, that the enslaved African race were not intended to be included, and formed no part of the people who framed and adopted this declaration; for if the language, as understood in that day, would embrace them, the conduct of the distinguished men who framed the Declaration of Independence would have been utterly and flagrantly inconsistent with the principles they asserted; and instead of the sympathy of mankind, to which they so confidently appealed, they would have deserved and received universal rebuke and reprobation.

Yet the men who framed this declaration were great men-high in literary acquirements-high in their sense of honor, and incapable of asserting principles inconsistent with those on which they were acting.  They perfectly understood the meaning of the language they used, and how it would be understood by others; and they knew that it would not in any part of the civilized world be supposed to embrace the negro race, which, by common consent, had been excluded from civilized Governments and the family of nations, and doomed to slavery.  They spoke and acted according to the then established doctrines and principles, and in the ordinary language of the day, and no one misunderstood them.  The unhappy black race were separated from the white by indelible marks, and laws long before established, and were never thought of or spoken of except as property, and when the claims of the owner or the profit of the trader were supposed to need protection.

This state of public opinion had undergone no change when the Constitution was adopted, as is equally evident from its provisions and language.

The brief preamble sets forth by whom it was formed, for what purposes, and for whose benefit and protection.  It declares that it is formed by the people of the United States; that is to say, by those who were members of the different political communities in the several States; and its great object is declared to be to secure the blessings of liberty to themselves and their posterity.  It speaks in general terms of the people of the United States, and of citizens of the several States, when it is providing for the exercise of the powers granted or the privileges secured to the citizen.  It does not define what description of persons are intended to be included under these terms, or who shall be regarded as a citizen and one of the people.  It uses them as terms so well understood, that no further description or definition was necessary.

So, we have, from many angles, the Supreme Court’s interpretation of who the Constitution was written both by, and, for.  It was never intended to be a catch all for the diverse populations, cultures, and religions of the world.

In 1867, the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution was ratified. Though many of the Congressmen believed that its purpose was to provide a place, in this country, for the negro population (recently freed slaves, as well as those negros previously freed), it has since been interpreted, by the government, not the Court, to be inclusive of all walks of life.

The Amendment first made “[a]ll persons born or naturalized. . . . citizens of the United States”. It then prohibited any state from passing laws which would “abridge the privileges and immunities of citizens of the United States”.

Since the Fourteenth Amendment extended the privileges and immunities to those who were henceforth known as “citizens of the United States”, it made no mention, nor is there any wording that would confer upon them, the status of those “sovereign people” who had established this government, and nation. It simply granted to them the “privileges and immunities”.

This left the original intent in place, though extended only certain rights to those who had, prior to the Amendment, no access to those “privileges and immunities”.

The country was still, as intended, only for those who were as described by Justice Taney, “it was formed by them, and for them and their posterity, but for no one else,” though it was then willing to share some of the bounty of this great land with others. In essence, it took  phrase, “citizen of the United States”, and made it a legal term. It did not remove the meaning of “citizen of the United States”, as it existed prior to the amendment, it simply created a second meaning, which, in legal context, conveyed only certain specified rights, and nothing more.

Regardless of the Amendment, we can clearly understand that if the door were opened to include any who wished to walk in and enjoy that bounty, it would absolutely destroy the context in which the country was formed. It was, after all, the heritage and culture, and the moral foundation espoused by Christianity, that was the very foundation for the great experiment. To allow that a single amendment, with an alleged purpose of only extending certain rights, could not be subsequently interpreted to be the means by which all that was embodied in the document to retracted  whiteout specific wording nullifying that original intent.

A nation has to have some binding force. In most nations, that force is the common language, heritage, and, culture, of the dominant people of the nation.  In the United States, that language is English; the heritage is English and the culture is European.  It is under such conditions that the United States evolved into an effective world force between its inception (the Declaration of Independence in 1776) and its ability to defend itself against outside forces (the War of 1812).

Its growth in prestige, power, influence, productivity, and pride, continued to grow, providing what became the deciding factor in World Wars I and II.  It had, without a doubt, become the dominant world power, especially considering that it did not suffer the devastation that most other countries realized in those conflicts.

Since that time, we have begun a downward spiral, destructive of both the nation (integrity of) and the Constitution, with but few exceptions.

In 1954, the Congress enacted the Communist Control Act of 1954. This act recognized that the Communist Party posed an eminent threat to the United States and its Constitution.  The codification of that act, at 50 U.S.C. § 842 , provides that:

The Communist Party of the United States, or any successors of such party regardless of the assumed name, whose object or purpose is to overthrow the Government of the United States, or the government of any State, Territory, District, or possession thereof, or the government of any political subdivision therein by force and violence, are not entitled to any of the rights, privileges, and immunities attendant upon legal bodies created under the jurisdiction of the laws of the United States or any political subdivision thereof; and whatever rights, privileges, and immunities which have heretofore been granted to said party or any subsidiary organization by reason of the laws of the United States or any political subdivision thereof, are terminated. . .

Clearly, there is legitimate concern that the Communist Party might use force to overthrow the government. Unfortunately, at the time, there was no due consideration of an overthrow by other means, such as subversion of the Constitution by political chicanery.  After all, subversive means had not then been developed to the fine art that has been achieved in the past half-century.

The authority within the Constitution, however, to enact laws that would protect the Constitution were, clearly, within the means and authority of the government.  Would it make any sense to be able to outlaw force as a means of supervision of the Constitution and not to allow means to avoid such an overthrow, without force?

What has effectively happened is that the manipulation, without Amendment to the Constitution, and with the abrogation of the Supreme Court’s responsibility to rule upon the constitutionality of laws (see About Ashwander v. TVA), we have seen a dilution of the Constitution which has resulted in a de facto revision to the Preamble, as follows:

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect workers Union, establish Justice Injustice, insure domestic Tranquility disharmony, provide for the common defence of any nation we see fit, promote provide the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to all but ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America, which shall continue in effect until such time as the people decide that they will burden their posterity with unmanageable debt and allow revision to this Constitution, without regard to the provision in Article V for amendment hereto.

Unless we stand firm and demand that the Nation be retained, as intended by the Framers of the Constitution, we will find that our children will be living in a third world country by the time they have grandchildren.  There is no middle ground.

We must understand that any organization, association, political philosophy, or, religion, which is not consistent with the Constitution, and, our way of life, should of necessity, be made unlawful, since its purpose would be to allow the Constitution to be the weapon of its own demise

The Communist Party and the Socialist Party espouse a politics of government control of, and, redistribution of, wealth.  Islam, though a religion, retains social, political and legal requirements that are inconsistent with our Constitution. Labor unions, though they may have served a useful purpose, in times past, before the government instituted laws that were protective of labor, are now too powerful and political to be consistent with the intention of the Constitution. They have become manipulators of the law, to their own favor, and with total disregard to the economy and our world trade situation.  These serve no useful purpose to the continuation of our way of life, and must be outlawed.

If we don’t act, firmly and soon, we will find that the new Preamble to the Constitution will be taught, at our expense, to our own children:

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a workers Union, establish Injustice, insure domestic disharmony, provide the defence of any nation we see fit, provide the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to all but ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America, which shall continue in effect until such time as the people decide that they will burden their posterity with unmanageable debt and allow revision to this Constitution, without regard to the provision in Article V for amendment hereto.

Though the Constitution may be equated to a “birth certificate” for the new nation conceived and embodied within it, unlike a birth certificate that certifies that you and I have entered life, only to leave it at some point in the future, that “birth certificate” was written to include posterity — it was the birth of a perpetual union – intended to live as long as free men do.

* * *

For more information on  who “We the People”, those whom the Constitution was written, by and for, are, see the five part series beginning with “We the People”, but, Who are We? – Part I    and the four part series beginning with Factions — The Chains of Oppression – Part I.

Committee of Safety
Common Law Court

Introduction

Just prior to and during the Revolutionary War, there was an absence of lawful courts in certain areas affected by the removal of British government, or removal of Charter government.  During this period, the Committees of Safety would establish courts, if the need arose.  They would handle criminal matters, where necessary, though their focus was greater in based upon the need to control Tory activity.  Punishment for being a Tory could be as simple as restriction of travel; house arrest; removal of “long arms”; imprisonment; or, execution.

Of course, there was a war going on, and the means and necessity were different than today.  However, the patriot community is plagued by accusation, defamation, and other activities that are very disruptive, and, are not conducive to a unified effort to restore constitutional government to the United States.

This Committee of Safety — Common Law Court is intended to provide a means, considering both the abilities (ease of communication, etc.) and the disabilities (proximity, etc.), of conducing “trials”, when charges are brought, and providing the fairest means within those constraints of dealing with those problems.

When someone is found “guilty”, they may consider revising their ways, to avoid the stigma of the verdict. They may decide that they no longer want to be a part of the patriot community. They may, also, resort to asking their boss for a reassignment.  In each instance, the patriot community will find itself slightly improved, and, perhaps discourage such activities in others.

Purpose

Empanelled only to hear complaints regarding disruption to the patriot community; creating division in the patriot community; personal attacks unfounded by the evidence; accusations of individuals having allegiance to the government instead of the Constitution; any malicious behavior which brings discredit to the patriot community.

There is a lot of disruption and division within the patriot community. Some is a result of human nature; some may be a result of intentional activity directed at creating division and animosity; and, some may be totally unfounded, perhaps just an error in communication. Regardless of the cause, it is the effect that is so detrimental to our cause of restoring constitutional government to the United States of America.

In looking towards a solution, aimed at minimizing the damaging impact, it only makes sense to look to that same community, those who seek to restore sound constitutional government, for the solution — a solution based upon the very document that we esteem so highly.

Understanding that many of the means that have been utilized, historically, to resolve such matters, what is being presented here is a common law court that will only hear cases of slander: libel: defamation: or, activities which are associated with the patriot community that tend, by their nature, to be disruptive and bring discredit to a segment, or, the entire community, it must also be adapted to the current means of communication, and the vastness of the community.

The process will begin with the filing of a Complaint. The Complaint will go to the Clerk of the Court, who will not be judgmental, only an administrative arm of the Committee of Safety – Common Law Court.

Composition of the Court

Before proceeding with the explanation, the elements of the Court need to be identified. There will be a pool of judges (voluntary) from which three (3) judges will be picked, at random, for any case brought before the Court. The purpose of the judges will be to maintain decorum and order in the court. They may assist parties in preparing coherent documentation; formulating orders from the court, assisting the Grand Jury in preparing an indictment

There will be a pool of Grand Jurors (voluntary), of which five (5) regular jurors and two (2) alternate jurors will be randomly selected every six months, and will not be able to sit, again, until six months after the completion of any term that have participated in, even as an alternate juror. The Grand Jury shall be unknown and inaccessible during their entire term. They will prepare indictments, based upon Complaints, if probable cause is determined.

There will be a jury pool (voluntary), from which seven (7) jurors will be randomly selected, for each trial. In addition both the Accuser and the Accused will appoint one (1) juror to the jury.  Three (3) alternative judges will be randomly selected, though will be in “read only” participation, unless a regular juror is unable to participate, or removed for cause. The Jury will try the case, and will be allowed to ask questions, through the judges, during the course of the trial. Their verdict shall be the final decision of the Court, unless an appeal is granted.

There will be a Clerk of the Court who will retain that position as long as they desire, subject, however, to removal by the judges for failure to perform, or, failure to maintain records, correspondence, etc., or to divulge any information to other than those intended to receive such information, records, etc.   There shall also be an Assistant Clerk who will fill in when the Clerk is unable to attend to duties, or has been discharged for cause.  Any two (2) judges sitting on a current proceeding may require the removal of a Clerk. The Clerk will maintain, in proper order, all correspondence, complaints, indictments, verdicts and any other records for every case. He may delegate to the Assistant Clerk, as necessary, though this shall only be done when the workload warrants additional help.

There will be an Internet Forum which shall serve as the Courthouse for trials and all information pertaining to any case brought before this Court.

This is the composition of the Court, which personnel will change with each case, with the exception of the Grand Jury.

Procedure for a Complaint

An Accuser, who wishes to accuse another, and bring them to trial in the Committee of Safety – Common Law Court can file a complaint with the Clerk.  Participation of the Accuser, and agreement to jurisdiction of the Court; its procedures; and, its final decision, are granted by filing a Complaint.

The Accused, once they answer any request for information or indictment from the Grand Jury, has agreed to jurisdiction of the Court; its procedures; and, its final decision, by virtue of their response. Absent a response, there is no jurisdiction granted, and the Court may publish any information provided by the Accuser, any findings, and, the indictment, along with an explanation that the Accused refused to respond to the Complaint and/or indictment, and has thereby waived consideration of any answer to the accusations.

Once the Complaint is filed with the Clerk of the Court, the Clerk will forward copies of all information received to the three judges which the Clerk will select, randomly, from the pool of judges. If any of the selected judges finds that he is familiar with either party, or for any reason determines himself unable to be impartial, he shall remove himself, in which case the Clerk will select another judge to fill such vacancy.

The Clerk will also notify the Accuser of the names of the judges. The Accuser, for cause, may request recusal of any of the judges that he feels may not be impartial; however, he must provide written cause along with the request for recusal. The judge in question may remove himself, however, if he does not voluntarily remove himself, the other two judges may rule on the recusal, however, if more than one judge is named in the recusal, the Clerk shall call two (2) judges from the judge pool who will sit with the third judge to weigh the merit, and make determination on the recusal. The Clerk will then fill any vacancies created by recusal from the judge pool.

The judges will prepare a concise presentation of the Complain. If evidence is necessary to substantiate information provided in the Complaint, the judges will notify the Clerk that additional information is needed. The Clerk shall then inform the Accuser, who shall provide the additional information requested.

Once the judges have determined that the Compliant, and supportive information, be complete, the package shall be provided to the Grand Jury. The Grand Jury may, through the Clerk, request additional information through the judges, who will pass the request to the Clerk, who will pass the request to the Accuser.

When the Grand Jury has completed its review of the information provided supportive of the Complaint, they shall prepare an indictment. They may request the assistance of the judges in preparing the indictment, if they so desire. When the indictment is completed, they shall provide the indictment, along with any copies of evidence they feel should be included, to the Clerk to send to the Accused. The Clerk shall also provide the names of the judges currently assigned to the matter, and the Accused shall have the same right to request recusal of any of the judges. This will be the first knowledge of the Accused that proceedings are being considered against him.

The Accused will have the opportunity to reply to the Grand Jury, with evidence, answering the accusations made against him. This will be the only opportunity, prior to trial, to address the Complaint. This information will be returned to the Clerk who will provide the Accused’s answer to the Grand Jury and the judges.

The Grand Jury shall then review the answer provided by the Accused and determine if there is merit to the accusation, in which cause the y will find probable cause and provide a True Bill to the Clerk. If they find that there is insufficient probable cause, they will provide a No Bill to the Clerk, who will then destroy all records pertaining to the case.

In the event that the Accused refuses to recognize the Court and submit to jurisdiction, which may be indicated by a direct answer, or, failure to respond to the indictment within thirty (30) working days (six weeks), the Court shall make public the indictment and any evidence supportive of the indictment, at the discretion of the judges, by posting the documentation in the Closed Docket Forum.

Jury Selection.

The jury will be composed as described above. Jurors will have their name posted at the beginning of the trial, in the Courtroom (see below). Either party, for cause, may request the removal of a juror. A reason must be given and the judges will rule on removal. The party selected jurors shall not be subject to removal. Vacancies in the jury will be filled by the Clerk prior to opening arguments.

Proceedings

If the Accused has answered, a Courtroom will be opened in the Forum Courthouse, bearing the name of both the Accuser and the Accused, along with a very general statement of the cause of action. Access to the Courtroom, at this point, will be Clerk – read only; judges – read/write; Accuser and Accused – read/write; jury – read only; others, no access during the trial.

At trial, the Accuser and the Accused shall restrain themselves from posting, unless the floor is theirs. The judges will open the proceedings by reading the charges.

Then, opening arguments from the Accuser; then the Accused, shall be presented. Each will have a thread in the Courtroom Forum. The charges will be presented in “Counts”. All discussion relative to a Count shall be on the thread for that Count. To maintain a proper sequence, the judges (court) will advise when and what either of the parties may post.  The parties may write their comments in a text editor, but they should not be pasted in the forum until told to do so.

There will be a thread named “bench” where the parties can pose questions to the court, at any time. This “bench” will not be made a public record, so what is posted there will not be a part of the public trial, available after the case is closed.

Jurors may direct questions they wish asked of either, or both, of the parties, by posting them to the “Clerk” thread. The judges will then formulate the question to be presented to the party to whom it is directed, including a Count assignment, where the party shall answer the question.

Objections will be posted at the Bench thread. Any objection will be ruled upon by the bench prior to proceeding with the trial.

Witnesses may be called, and they will be allowed access to the Courtroom only during their testimony.  They will be subject to cross examination. Any witness may be recalled by either party, though there is no subpoenaed power in this forum. The jury will also be allowed to ask questions of witnesses through the Clerk. If a witness testifies for one party and refuses to answer cross examination by the other party, or questions from the jury, his testimony will be stricken, and the jury will ignore the testimony. The trial will conclude with closing arguments (threaded) after the completion of the submission of all evidence.

Closing arguments will be presented by both parties, Accuser being the first to offer closing, with a short rebuttal allowed to each party. Closing arguments and rebuttals will mark the end of the trail.

Jury Deliberation

The jury will then be directed to the Jury Room Forum where they will deliberate. They will have full access to the Courtroom, and may ask any questions of the judges, if they so desire. Their deliberations should be maintained in the Count threads, or in a general thread, depending on particular discussion — based upon the judgment of the jurors.

Every effort should be made to come to a unanimous verdict, on each of the Counts. This will be highly unlikely, since each party has a juror present. If six jurors do find for one side, the Court will consider that verdict as unanimous.

Final Decision

The final verdict, however, will be based upon the preponderance of evidence, for each count, and the verdict will be final, subject only to appeal (explained later). The jury will then prepare, with the assistance of a judge, or judges, final pronouncement of the Court (Final Decision). The final decision will be posted on the Docket Forum. Others are able to copy and utilize the final decision, for information purposes, so long as it remains unedited and the source (URL) for the permanent record (Docket Forum) is attached to any copies distributed. Violations of this practice (complete decision and URL) will result in a contempt of court against the violator(s), and that violation will be posted, attached to the final decision, in the Docket Forum.

At this time, the Courtroom will be opened (read only) to provide public access to the proceedings. It will be locked, and no changes or postings will be made after the close of trial, except that the final decision will also be posted in the Courtroom.

Appeals

Decisions of the Court are subject to appeal. Appeal Hearings may be granted by a five (5) judge panel, randomly selected by the Clerk, none of which can be judges from the original trial.

Basis for Appeals:

New evidence, unavailable at time of trial

New witnesses, unavailable at trail

Other circumstances which, when brought forward, might affect the outcome of the original trial

To Appeal a Decision of the Court, the Appellant must submit to the Clerk a request for a hearing before the above mentioned panel, which will be empanelled upon receipt of the request. Full detail, including evidence to support request for appeal, must be submitted with the original request. The appeals panel may require additional information.

If the determination of the appeals panel is in favor of the appeal, the Panel may:

Hold hearings, with both parties participating; or,

Retry the matter, subject only to the additional information brought toward, though incorporated with the Jury deliberations form the original trial.

Either hearing or retrial can result in setting aside portions, or all, of the original Final Decision of the Court.

All records, evidence, etc., brought up in hearing or retrial will become a permanent part of the record of the trial.

[For more information on the Common Law Court, see Committee of Safety – Common Law Court (an explanation]

A Simplified Explanation of
“The Plan for the Restoration of Constitutional Government”

I have been asked for a sentence, or two, to describe “The Plan For the Restoration of Constitutional Government”. Well, I could not provide such a short description due to the complexity of the Plan, itself.

However, in numerous phone conversations, I have tried to provide an explanation of the Plan, and I do believe that I have found a descriptive means of demonstrating just how it would work.

Suppose you had a map of the United States and it was all black. Black represents areas that are under the control of repressive government (yes, this also includes all state governments that have submitted to receiving federal funds — all of them).

Now, suppose a very small white dot appears on the map. Within a few days, a few more white dots appear. These white areas (even though very, very small, at first) represent areas that have returned to Constitutional government, regardless of the means. As time goes on, these small white dots become more frequent, and, they begin to become larger.

After a short period of time, some of the dots, now growing into definable shape, stretch out and merge with another white area.

As time goes on, these areas become even large, merging with other areas, and, soon, encompassing counties within their respective state. Growing and merging, the will soon encompass most of the state, perhaps wrapping around large population areas (cities and metropolitan areas).

As they continue to grow, they will cross state lines and begin absorbing the high population areas, until the map has been reversed, and the black areas are reduced to dots, and then disappear completely.

So, if I have been successful in reducing the Plan to a simple and easily conveyed explanation, perhaps you would like to go to The Plan for Restoration of Constitutional Government,  and download a copy of The Plan.

When you read the Plan, you will see that it is based upon our own history. It is an emulation of the same course taken by our own Founders in securing the colonies that were soon to become the United States of America.

Habeas Corpus — what does it mean?

Gary Hunt
Outpost of Freedom
December 4, 2010

Constitution, Article I, Section 9, clause 2:

The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it.

Unlike most protections afforded in the Constitution as rights, this one is clearly set out as a “privilege”. This is because it can be suspended under certain conditions, though it has to be so stated to the public, when it is suspended.

* * *

The following is written as an explanation in response to a number of queries about my use of habeas corpus in an article entitled “What if I’m Arrested?“.

The article dealt with the circumstance surrounding a traffic ticket, though did not sufficiently support the reasoning behind the habeas corpus.  This is to expound upon that “great writ”.

This does not mean that “habeas corpus” will only work on a traffic ticket. I have not had the opportunity to test it on a larger scale.

* * * * * * * * * * * * *

Habeas corpus is a phrase that many of us learned in grade school.  Not that we really knew what it meant, but we were told how important it was and why it was even included as protected by the Constitution.  At best, we were told that it was “bring forth the body”, which, by definition, has some truth.

Today, the press only mentions habeas corpus when they are talking about death row decisions.  This is a nice diversion, because, since we didn’t really know what it meant, we are now prone to accept that if we ever find ourselves on death row, we can recall that fine “great writ of liberty” and, perhaps, prolong our demise.

So, let’s start by looking at what the legal definition(s) of habeas corpus is (are):

From Black’s Law Dictionary, 5th Edition:

Habeas corpus acts.  The English statutes of 31 Car. II, c. 2, is the original and prominent habeas corpus act.  It was amended and supplemented by St. 56 Geo. III, c. 100.  Similar statutes have been enacted in all of the United States.  This act is regarded as the great constitutional guarantee of personal liberty.  See Art. I, § 9, U.S. Const.; 28 U.S.C.A. §2241 et seq.

Habeas corpus ad deliberandum et recipiendum.  A writ which is issued to remove, for trial, a person confined in one county to the county or place where the offense of which he is accused was committed.  Thus, it has been granted to remove a person in custody for contempt to take his trial for perjury in another county.

Habeas corpus ad faciendum et recipiendum.  A writ issuing in civil cases to remove the cause, as also the body of the defendant, from an inferior court to a superior court having jurisdiction, there are to be a disposed of.  It is also called “habeas corpus cum causa“.

Habeas corpus ad prosequendum.  A writ which is usually employed in civil cases to remove a person out of the custody of one court into that of another, in order that he may be sued and answer the action in the latter.

Habeas corpus ad satisfaciendum.  An English practice, a writ which issues when a prisoner has had a judgment against them in an action, and the plaintiff is desirous to bring him up to some superior court, to charge him with process of execution.

Habeas corpus ad subjiciendum.  A writ directed to the person detaining another, and commanding them to produce the body of the prisoner, or person detained.  This is the most common form of habeas corpus writ, the purpose of which is to test the legality of the detention or imprisonment; not whether he is guilty or innocent.  This writ is guaranteed by U.S. Const. Art I, §9, and by state constitutions.  See also 28 U.S.C.A. §2241 et seq.

This is the well known remedy in England and the United States for deliverance from illegal confinement, called by Sir William Blackstone the most celebrated writ and the English law, and the great and efficacious writ, in all manner of illegal confinement.  3 Bl.Comm. 129.  The “great writ of liberty”, issuing at common law out of the courts of Chancery, King’s Bench, Common Pleas, and Exchequer.

Habeas corpus ad testificandum.  The writ, meaning you have the body to testify, used to bring up a prisoner detained in a jail or prison to give evidence before the court.  Hottle v. District Court in and for Clinton County, 233 Iowa 904, 11 N.W.2d 30, 34; 3Bl.Comm. 130.

Now, I realize that this is getting rather confusing.  However, if you read them all, as well as the first, which sets out that history of the series of acts that constitute habeas corpus, you might have noted that one stands out from the rest.  If not, then, go back and reread Habeas corpus ad subjiciendum.  In so doing, you will note that Blackstone defined it as “the great writ of liberty“.  Darn, same language they used in school.

You will also note that, “the purpose of which is to test the legality of the detention“.  So, it appears that, perhaps, this, as in the game “Monopoly”, just might be a “Get Out of Jail Free” card.  Not quite!

Detention evokes an image of being constrained by chains, force, threat of force, or other means that keep you from doing what you wish to do.  So, I’ll use an example of what I wrote about in What if I’m Arrested?.  I was arrested.  I posted bail and was free, so long as I appeared in court at the time and place directed.  Though I was free to move about, while on bail, I was still, technically, detained.  I was under detention!  Likewise, if you have signed a traffic ticket, you have agreed to appear.  If you ask the officer issuing the citation, “If I do not sign this, will you take me to jail?”, he will affirm that he will take you to jail.  So, even though you may not have posted bail, you have, by your signature, bound yourself to self-imposed detention until such time as you appear.

New, if we understand just what “held to answer” (5th Amendment) means, that is that we are, technically detained, though perhaps not physically, when we are charged with a crime, we understand that the charge, requiring that you produce yourself at the required place and time, makes the detention a part of the charge, and the charge a part of the detention.  Neither can exist without the other.

Now, with that in mind, let’s look at the matter of detention.  When I did my “oral demand for habeas corpus” (What if I’m Arrested?), by challenging the court to produce the injured party, and demanding that that party be produced along with an affidavit or contract, I was challenging the detention associated with the charge.  The judge, apparently, agreed and decided to “nolle prosequi” (not prosecute) the case.  Thereby freeing me from both detention and charges.

Unlike the approach most often taken by those challenging jurisdiction (which this really was -jurisdiction over my body), who seek to get into common law courts, my approach was predicated on getting out of common law court by assuming that I was already in a common law court.  This created no argument with the judge, only the decision to grant me that common law right, or not.

For much more on Habeas Corpus, see

Habeas Corpus – Main Page  webpage

Habeas Corpus docketed in the U. S. Supreme Court  article

For the current status of the Habeas Corpus before the Supreme Court, see Habeas Corpus Suspended

a United States Militia

Gary Hunt
Outpost of Freedom
December 3, 2010

Often I see a suggestion that the federal government should enact statutes protecting the militia, perhaps even organizing and equipping it.  Well, to some extent that is provided for in the Constitution.

Article I, Section 8, clause 15:

Congress shall have the Power to….  To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

So, it can be called forth for certain purposes.

Article I, Section 8, clause 16:

Congress shall have the Power to…. To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

Organizing, arming, and disciplining are also included, extended even to governing, while in time of service to the country.  Significantly, however, the appointment of officers and training is left to the States.  This is important because it show the chain of command being to the State not the United States, (except as necessary when in service to the United States).  The officers know who writes their check, and, the members are trained by local people, though in accordance with the discipline provided by Congress.  The primary allegiance to the State is preserved.

Article II, Section 2, clause 1:

The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States; …

Here is the exception mentioned above.  Only while in service to the country is the allegiance to the State even subordinated.

Second Amendment:

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Though State can also mean a country, in the context of the Constitution, it is one of the members of the Union created by the Constitution.  Here, quite clearly, the ability for the State to a free in its nature is assured by the only explanation of the need for the Militia — the security of a free State.

The following was enacted in 1916, with the exception of the provision for “female members of the National Guard (1973) and “unorganized militia” description (1958).  Exceptions (those not in the militia) are provided for in the next Section of the Code, but are irrelevant to this discussion.

10 U.S.C. § 311: Militia: composition and classes

(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
(b) The classes of the militia are –
(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.

So, let us look at what affect this Statute (United States Code provision) has on the entire concept of Militia.

Let’s suppose that the United States wanted to call forth the Militia, prior to 1916.  They would requisition from the states a quota to be filled.  The States, in their capacity, could refuse, if they wanted, to fill the quota.  I’m not sure where this would take us, since I am not aware of any instance where that happened, but, perhaps, that is why it never happened — that the federal government knew its limits and would not dare call the Militia under circumstances that it felt might generate a refusal.

An Economic Solution

Gary Hunt
Outpost of Freedom
September 17. 2010

To return to a sound economic base, primarily a free market economy, a series of steps must be taken to achieve an understanding of where “existing” money is, and how it will be accounted in the conversion to the plan proposed herein.

To initiate the plan, fractional reserve banking must cease. Usury laws shall be enacted limiting interest to 3% per annum. All outstanding obligations to any financial institution will be held in abeyance, with no accruing interest, until the redemption process (2 years) has been completed.

The plan calls for the replacement of currency in two general areas, internal money and external money. Internal being that held by citizens of the United States or corporations operating solely within the United States. External being money held by any person not a citizen of the United States and any corporation operating internationally.

The sources of obligations are of three natures. First is the money circulating within the United States, currently, which will be identified as “A”. Next will be money circulating in the international realm based upon trade or other money legitimately held. This will be referred to as “B”. Finally, there is a lot of money which is circulating internally and internationally which was acquired by means considered illegal, such as the millions of dollars stacked in closets in Mexico, which will be identified as “C”.

The money of the “A” type will be redeemed as follows All coins and currency in circulation or on deposit , of an internal nature, will be identified based upon criteria to be developed, though will not include banking reserves, or any dollars not based upon real assets.

Replacement of value for internal money will be replaced . first, with US Greenback dollars, based on the full faith and credit of the United States. All redemption will require a physical return of Federal Reserve Notes in exchange for US Greenback dollars. This will become the interim money for internal use only, until the final resolution to specie based dollars.

Redemption will be conducted over a period of one year, with an additional years in which to hear appeals to decisions regarding whether the dollars are redeemable, or not, and any other petitions for consideration of redemption, all of which can only be presented by citizens of the United States.

For the sake of discussion, we will assume that the recognized type “A” money, Greenback Dollars ($), issued over this period amounts to $4 trillion.

The gold and silver on deposit at Fort Knox is to be audited and the actual dollar value determined based upon the original value of $20 per ounce of gold and $1 per ounce of silver. This will include only the assets of the United States held at Fort Knox. We will assume, then, that the value determined by this audit comes to $80 billion.

Gold and Silver Certificates will be issued based upon the value determined by the audit. The certificates are not redeemable for gold or silver, but are value based upon the deposit at Fort Knox, which will be audited every five years to assure that the sound backing of the United States Dollar (designated by $ ) continues, and that the internal money supply is limited, and cannot be expanded by other than additional gold or silver deposits made to the Depository.

Gold and silver may circulate as specie, though the United States government will not mint, guarantee, or participate in circulation thereof. Any specie made in payment to, or bought by, the United States government will be deposited in the Depository and Certificates ($) issued into circulation.

The existing United States Greenback Dollars ($) will be redeemed for the new United States Dollars ($) based upon the ratio of recognized type “A” money ($4,000,000,000,000.00) to the United States Dollar ($80,000,000,000.00), [ $/$ = 50 ], the Greenback dollars will be redeemed at the rate of $50 for one United States Dollar ($1). This would require an adjustment of the value of goods to 1/50th of their current value. For example, if something now costs $5, the new price would be $0.10 (10¢).

The new United States Dollars would only circulate within the United States. If returned from outside of the United States, they will be redeemed for United States Trade Credits (see below), at the value at the time of redemption.

Type “B” money and any type “A” money not redeemed as aforesaid shall be redeemed by redeeming all such outstanding obligations for United States Trade Credits. A determination will be made of each application to determine the rate of redemption. For Treasury Bills (full faith and credit of the United States), redemption should be at face value. For Federal Reserve Notes and other obligations based upon Federal Reserve Notes, redemption should be based upon the ratios determined for type “A” greenback to United States Dollars.

United States Trade Credits, while determined in dollars ($), will not be on par with the United States Dollar ($). Trade Credits will be used only for international commerce, and will not be circulated within the United States. They will be converted to United States Dollars upon entry into the country, based upon the aforesaid ratio, and United States Dollars will be converted to Trade Credits (even for citizens of the United States going abroad) upon leaving the country. United States Dollars returned to the United States will be penalized and redeemed at 50% of value.

Adjustments may be made to the Dollar to Trade Credit ratio, from time to time, to assure that a beneficial to the United Sates value is attached thereto.

Outstanding obligations in Trade Credits (existing outstanding obligations) will be assured, though no timely redemption is implied.

Balance of trade, in the international market, must be pursued to extinguish the outstanding debt in Trade Credits.

Type “C” money along with any type “A”: or type “B” money not redeemed timely, or determined to be ill-gotten, will not be redeemed, and will not become an obligation on the United States. This does not preclude actions against the Federal Reserve Board, which will, upon initiation of this plan, no longer have standing within the United States.

The following is a much abbreviated version of “The Plan for the Restoration of Constitutional Government“. The entire Plan consumes many pages of detail regarding the Plan as well as hundreds of pages of reference materials.

* * * * * * * * * * * * *

The Plan for the Restoration of Constitutional Government

Abbreviated Version
(includes only a few portions of the overall plan)

Preface

This Plan for the Restoration of Constitutional Government, as explained in “The Question”, is purely hypothetical.  It is, however, a natural evolution from the “You Have Tread On Me – Petition“, as the Revolutionary War was a natural evolution from the Olive Branch Petition.

In adapting this sequence of events to modern times, it needs to be understood that times have changed and the possibility of a gathering of “revolutionary” delegates in one place would be fatal to the cause.

Understanding this difficulty, the expedient for today is that individuals would sign and submit, to their respective representatives in the federal government, individual petitions as “redress of grievances, as per Article I of the Bill of Rights.

Absent a positive response to the Petition, one could safely conclude that the government had no more intention of addressing the grievances than King George III did.  This, by colonial standards, would put one in a “state of nature” — absent an operating Constitutional government — wherein he, as a free man, has every right to associate with others of similar circumstance.

An earlier article, by the author of this Plan, provides some insight into this aspect of the Founders’ thinking process when they realized that they could no longer live under government that did not recognize their rights (see Sons of Liberty #14).

As you progress through this hypothetical Plan, you will not that there are short sketches (Historical Perspective) that provide a brief example of the historical conditions that can be equated with each part of the Plan.

The Plan, then, is an effort to parallel the activities of the Founders into a theoretical plan that emulates the progression of events, culminating in the creation of the United States of America.

The Plan is made as detailed as expedient for the variety of possible circumstance that might arise.  Plans, however, can never be made so rigid that they will work under all conditions.  Therefore, it is intended to provide sufficient detail so that creative minds could easily refine the Plan into a working model for immediate and local conditions.

Often, elements of the Plan call to mind other works by this author, and, works by others, in which cases, links are provided to those works to provide additional insight which might assist in more detailed planning.

The Plan is provided for your pleasure and education.  What you do with it is up to you, and, what you do not do with it is a point of consideration for your posterity.

G. H.

* * * * * * * * * * * * *

The Question:

A question was raised, a few months ago, in a conversation with a friend.  The question was, “Could a Revolution be conducted in the modern world considering modern technology, extensive government troops, and battle field weapons?”  At first thought, the task seems so ominous, so daunting and against such odds, that it would be impractical, if not impossible.

Upon reflecting on what must have been equally daunting to the Founding Fathers, it is not, as first anticipated, such an ominous task.

The Founding Fathers faced British forces — the best-trained and most successful military in the then world.  Its navy was master of the seas; its land forces had recently defeated the French and had forced colonization around the world.  It controlled the local government, and had enacted laws that gave it nearly arbitrary control over the colonies.

The colonies had few things working for them.  They had a lack of experience, except those who had recently fought alongside the British in the French-Indian Wars; some had learned to defend themselves against hostile Indians, and thus learned fighting tactics used by the Indians.  They had local knowledge of the topography.  And, they had the fortitude and persistence that had helped their forefathers, and themselves, overcome the obstacles of taming a land that had been little changed from its natural state.

Against them were: Substantial numbers of highly trained soldiers; Unlimited supplies and resources, although most of them were located across the ocean and had to be transported, this taking months; A multitude of locations, bases, within and around the colonies; Mastery of the waterways; And, many of the military leaders had experience both with fighting Indians and working alongside the colonists.

In those first eventful days of April, May, and June 1775, the colonists learned what their weaknesses were and what some of their strengths were.  They learned that they were not trained, nor were they inclined to fight face-to-face on the battlefield.  They learned that the tactics of the Indians, ambush by surprise and hit and run tactics would damage both morale and manpower of the British.  They learned that living to fight another day was more important than victory in a battle; that skirmishes were the best tactic, unless a major battle had a high degree of probability of being won..  One of the major drawbacks in their efforts was that of selecting officers who were astute enough to challenge the ways of traditional warfare.

But, they did, with their persistence and their faith in God, prevail — not by might, rather by tactics and fortitude.

Just how would they fight, today?  Surely, they would adapt their tactics to the ‘battlefield’ and would realize the political necessity of securing faith and assistance from the non-combatants.  There are many other generalities that can be addressed, but of greater importance will be the actual circumstances of today’s world and the necessity to develop new tactics in order to overcome obstacles that present themselves, as the battle begins.  This is a theoretical answer to that question.

* * * * * * * * * * * * *

Some Thoughts

This plan, after years of discussion and contemplation, coupled with an understanding of what the Founders did to challenge the authority of the power of government, was developed as a guideline that would answer the question of whether it would be possible, today, to emulate the actions of those Founders to achieve the same end.

The desire to change government back to its Constitutional limitations would best be served if no blood were shed.  The impracticality of achieving that end, along with the knowledge that blood has already been shed, moves us to the second position — that the minimum amount of blood be shed, and, that of if blood is to be shed, that it include an absolute minimum of innocent blood.

There is little doubt that during a conflict, blood will be shed, when necessary, in the course of that conflict.  Knowing that any innocent blood shed is a detriment to the image of those who seek to return to Constitutional government, every effort should be made to “pick the ground” for open conflict, with special consideration to locations that will have the least impact on innocent bystanders.

In the selection of ‘targets’, outside of the normal area of conflict (aggravation), the following should be taken into consideration.

Though accident, error, and, perhaps, judging wrongly, the actions of those who might be targeted, it is far better to isolate those errors to people who, if not guilty, at least are in a position and have acted in such a manner that their guilt is probable.

There is also the moral consideration — that those who are willing to strike, as the Founders did, do so in violation of the laws, as they exist, today.  When they make a decision to “target” someone, or, something, they should consider just how the “target” would be construed by those who will, eventually, make judgment on their actions.  The most important consideration, however, would be the judgment made by God and the person doing the act.  If that act is motivated for purposes of revenge, God will judge, and, the person will have to live with, the consequences.

On the other hand, if the act is one that is surely one of retribution for acts of the target, whether corporate property or an individual life, and has clearly demonstrated by a pattern on the part of the person or entity, then, surely, God will judge as necessary, and, the actor will have a clear mind.

Where possible, all players in the act, and, even more desirable, others who can safely be associated with and brought into, if not the plan, at least the determination of the validity of the ‘target’, the collective judgment, serving as a sort of jury, considering both the guilt and the demonstrable necessity of the action, will provide the best assurance of a desirable final judgment, and a clear conscience for those involved.

If blood is to be shed, every consideration should be made that the blood deserves to be shed.

Some considerations for the evaluation of a ‘target’:

• Have lives been lost as direct, or indirect, result of the actions of the ‘target’, acting in violation of the Constitution or constitutional laws of the land?
• Has there been a continual loss of property by people who should have had that property protected, under the Constitution or constitutional laws?
• If a foreign nation, say, Russia, were to invade the United States, would the target become a collaborator, turning against the United States and the Constitution?

Note: The possibility that if there were sufficient ‘friends” (collaborators) of a foreign power, these ‘friends’ who might encourage participation by that foreign power, is to be considered.  The discouragement of his sort of person (potential collaborators) would be as desirable as the discouragement of all other potential ‘targets’.

* * * * * * * * * * * * *

The remainder of the Plan can be found at The Plan for Restoration of Constitutional Government

Or an audio version at Discourse on “The Plan for Restoration of Constitutional Government”

Some Thoughts on Taxation

Gary Hunt
Outpost of Freedom
November 24, 2010

 Introduction

Taxation is often considered one of the most burdensome and oppressive duties of government.  “There are only two things certain; Death and Taxes”, quite adequately describes the effect of taxes upon our daily lives.

Though far from truth, schoolbooks have, for generations, proclaimed that “No Taxation without Representation” was the cause of the Revolutionary War.  There is no doubt that the fact that the colonies had no representation in Parliament was one of many points of contention between colonies and Crown.  This very fact was the subject of many speeches, on both sides of the Atlantic.

It has been suggested, on the western side of the Atlantic, that if the colonies were allowed to raise their own taxes, based upon both their needs and requisitions from Parliament, this objection would have been overcome.  So, let’s keep that thought in mind as we look at our history with regard to the subject of taxation.

We need to understand that the Framers had to deal with the touchy subject of taxation based upon the role it played in leading up to separation from England as well as the brief history and problems posed between Independence and the Constitution.  The former has just been addressed, so we will look at the later.

Two situations provided the Framers some concern in dealing with the subject.  The first was that the requisitions imposed by the Continental Congress, both before and under the Articles of Confederation were ignored by a number of states, ultimately resulting in abandoning efforts to collect the requisitions and relieving those debts not paid.

The second situation was known as Shay’s Rebellion [1787].  Farmers in Western Massachusetts had been taxed by the State, the purpose being for the State to be able to pay its obligations to the Congress, as well as have operating funds for the function of the Massachusetts government.  This was compounded by the absence of specie (gold or silver) through the colonies.  Repayment of debt on foreign loans required specie.

Now, to source documents:

Constitution

Article I, Section 2, clause 3:

Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons…

Article I, Section 7, clause 1:

All Bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives; but the Senate may propose or concur with Amendments as on other Bills.

Article I, Section 8, clause 1:

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

Article I, Section 9, clause 1:

The Migration or Importation of such Persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the Year one thousand eight hundred and eight, but a Tax or duty may be imposed on such Importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each Person.

Article I, Section 9, clauses 4 & 5:

No Capitation, or other direct, Tax shall be laid, unless in Proportion to the Census or Enumeration herein before directed to be taken.

No Tax or Duty shall be laid on Articles exported from any State.

Article I, Section 10, clauses 1 thru 3:

No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal; coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts;

No State shall, without the Consent of the Congress, lay any Imposts or Duties on Imports or Exports, except what may be absolutely necessary for executing it’s inspection Laws: and the net Produce of all Duties and Imposts, laid by any State on Imports or Exports, shall be for the Use of the Treasury of the United States; and all such Laws shall be subject to the Revision and Controul of the Congress.

No State shall, without the Consent of Congress, lay any Duty of Tonnage, keep Troops, or Ships of War in time of Peace, enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State, or with a foreign Power, or engage in War, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay.

Amendment 16 [1913]:

The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration.

Amendment [XVII] [1913]

The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State, elected by the people thereof, for six years; and each Senator shall have one vote.  The electors in each State shall have the qualifications requisite for electors of the most numerous branch of the State legislatures.

Amendment 19 [1964]:

Section 1–The right of citizens of the United States to vote in any primary or other election for President or Vice President, for electors for President or Vice President, or for Senator or Representative in Congress, shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or any State by reason of failure to pay any poll tax or other tax.

Federalist Papers

The Federalist Papers are accepted as an indication of the intent to the Framers, and, of those who ratified that Constitution.

Federalist Papers #12, Alexander Hamilton:

The prosperity of commerce is now perceived and acknowledged by all enlightened statesmen to be the most useful as well as the most productive source of national wealth, and has accordingly become a primary object of their political cares….  It has been found in various countries that, in proportion as commerce has flourished, land has risen in value.

***

The ability of a country to pay taxes must always be proportioned, in a great degree, to the quantity of money in circulation, and to the celerity with which it circulates.  Commerce, contributing to both these objects, must of necessity render the payment of taxes easier, and facilitate the requisite supplies to the treasury.

***

But it is not in this aspect of the subject alone that Union will be seen to conduce to the purpose of revenue.  There are other points of view, in which its influence will appear more immediate and decisive.  It is evident from the state of the country, from the habits of the people, from the experience we have had on the point itself, that it is impracticable to raise any very considerable sums by direct taxation.  Tax laws have in vain been multiplied; new methods to enforce the collection have in vain been tried; the public expectation has been uniformly disappointed, and the treasuries of the States have remained empty.

***

No person acquainted with what happens in other countries will be surprised at this circumstance.  In so opulent a nation as that of Britain, where direct taxes from superior wealth must be much more tolerable, and, from the vigor of the government, much more practicable, than in America, far the greatest part of the national revenue is derived from taxes of the indirect kind, from imposts, and from excises.  Duties on imported articles form a large branch of this latter description.

***

Revenue, therefore, must be had at all events.  In this country, if the principal part be not drawn from commerce, it must fall with oppressive weight upon land.

Federalist Papers #30, Alexander Hamilton:

Let us attend to what would be the effects of this situation in the very first war in which we should happen to be engaged.  We will presume, for argument’s sake, that the revenue arising from the impost duties answers the purposes of a provision for the public debt and of a peace establishment for the Union.  Thus circumstanced, a war breaks out.  What would be the probable conduct of the government in such an emergency?  Taught by experience that proper dependence could not be placed on the success of requisitions, unable by its own authority to lay hold of fresh resources, and urged by considerations of national danger, would it not be driven to the expedient of diverting the funds already appropriated from their proper objects to the defence of the State?  It is not easy to see how a step of this kind could be avoided; and if it should be taken, it is evident that it would prove the destruction of public credit at the very moment that it was becoming essential to the public safety.

Federalist Papers #45, James Madison:

If the federal government is to have collectors of revenue, the State governments will have theirs also.  And as those of the former will be principally on the sea-coast, and not very numerous, whilst those of the latter will be spread over the face of the country, and will be very numerous, the advantage in this view also lies on the same side.  It is true, that the Confederacy is to possess, and may exercise, the power of collecting internal as well as external taxes throughout the States; but it is probable that this power will not be resorted to, except for supplemental purposes of revenue; then an option will then be given to the States to supply their quotas by previous collections of their own; and that the eventual collection, under the immediate authority of the Union, will generally be made by the officers, and according to the rules, appointed by the several States.

***

The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined.  Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite.  The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce; with which last the power of taxation will, for the most part, be connected.  The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs; concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the State.

Constitutional Intent

“Representation and Direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States” provides an insight into one of the methods of funding for the federal government.  Representation was to be based upon population, and, the funds needed in excess of those derived by other means were to be supplemented proportioned on the strength of voting power of each state in the House of Representatives.

Let’s look at the relationship between taxation, spending, and representation.  First, we have “All Bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives“, giving that representative body the exclusive power to raise taxes, though concurrence by the Senate and the President were still required.

Now, let’s look at the Senate.  Senators were appointed by the State legislatures, prior to the adoption of the 17th Amendment, and, consequently, would look out for the interest of the State, while the representatives would look out for the interests of the people who comprised their constituency.  So, we have both the people and the state with representation to look out for their respective interests.

If the Representatives felt a need for raising revenue, the would “originate” a bill to that effect.  The Senate, if the burden were put upon the states to raise the revenue, might be concerned and refuse to approve the bill, saving the respective legislatures from having to raise taxes to raise revenues to meet the needs of the federal government.

In a sense, we would have three, independent bodies exerting caution over any increase in revenue; the House of Representatives ; the Senate; and, the respective state legislatures, which would have the responsibility of raising additional revenue, as well as the ire of the people in so doing. 

If we delve a bit deeper into this concept, we can see that there is a consistency with the feelings of the Founders when they coined the phrase, “No Taxation without Representation“.  If we equate the Parliament with the Congress, and, the state legislatures with the colonial assemblies, we can see a parallel, which would require the state legislature (colonial assembly) to enact revenue laws based upon requisitions by the Congress (Parliament).  Clearly, this concept has strong support from our history books.

To address the Founders concerns, perhaps it would be appropriate to have representatives in the Congress to enact and approve revenue bills, and then, requisition to the states; the state legislature to raise the revenues so required.

Also, the intent of the involvement of the states in collecting the revenue was made clear by James Madison (FP #45), when he said, “It is true, that the Confederacy is to possess, and may exercise, the power of collecting internal as well as external taxes throughout the States; but it is probable that this power will not be resorted to, except for supplemental purposes of revenue; then an option will then be given to the States to supply their quotas by previous collections of their own.” 

We need not wonder why this method, of the state paying quotas, was not primary.  The experience of the recent past had proven, under the Articles of Confederation, that collection would be, at best, difficult.  There had been no experience under the Constitution and strengthened federal government to dispel such concern.  Recent history, however, has demonstrated that the federal government is quite able to enforce compliance, which makes moot this concern.

Madison also points out, in the same number, that the primary need for additional revenue would be consistent with, “The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government [which] will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce; with which last the power of taxation will, for the most part, be connected.”

Subsequently, in 1913, this whole concept of taxation was turned on end.  With the enactment of the 16th and 17th Amendments to the Constitution (coincidently, the same year that the Federal Reserve Act and currency contrary to the Constitution) were ratified, changing our whole economic structure by rendering gold and silver equal to, or subordinate to, promissory notes (Federal Reserve Notes).  Money was relegated to a system without value.

Clearly, the type of expenditures we have today were not within the scope imagined by Madison.  Quite possibly, if the tax structure was maintained along the original concepts, we would not have the enormous debt to repay.

Continuing on with the subject, let’s see what Alexander Hamilton thought should be the primary source of revenue. 

In Federalist Papers # 12, he said, “The prosperity of commerce is now perceived and acknowledged by all enlightened statesmen to be the most useful as well as the most productive source of national wealth, and has accordingly become a primary object of their political cares…” 

He continues, “The ability of a country to pay taxes must always be proportioned, in a great degree, to the quantity of money in circulation, and to the celerity with which it circulates.  Commerce, contributing to both these objects, must of necessity render the payment of taxes easier, and facilitate the requisite supplies to the treasury.”

He then advises that, “[i]t is evident from the state of the country, from the habits of the people, from the experience we have had on the point itself, that it is impracticable to raise any very considerable sums by direct taxation…”

In support of the use of commerce as the primary source of revenue, he says, “No person acquainted with what happens in other countries will be surprised at this circumstance.  In so opulent a nation as that of Britain, where direct taxes from superior wealth must be much more tolerable, and, from the vigor of the government, much more practicable, than in America, for the greatest part of the national revenue is derived from taxes of the indirect kind, from imposts, and from excises.  Duties on imported articles form a large branch of this latter description.”  Included in this is a comparison to England, where the rich are well defined, and a source of revenue.  Something that might be worthy of consideration.

Finally, in this number, he concludes with the significance of the burden on other sources than revenue, when he says, “Revenue, therefore, must be had at all events.  In this country, if the principal part be not drawn from commerce, it must fall with oppressive weight upon land.”

To demonstrate the nature of change in how government operates, we can look at the concerns that Mr. Hamilton placed upon the ability of the country to borrow money, should the need arise, in Federalist Papers #30:

Let us attend to what would be the effects of this situation in the very first war in which we should happen to be engaged.  We will presume, for argument’s sake, that the revenue arising from the impost duties answers the purposes of a provision for the public debt and of a peace establishment for the Union.  Thus circumstanced, a war breaks out.  What would be the probable conduct of the government in such an emergency?  Taught by experience that proper dependence could not be placed on the success of requisitions, unable by its own authority to lay hold of fresh resources, and urged by considerations of national danger, would it not be driven to the expedient of diverting the funds already appropriated from their proper objects to the defence of the State?  It is not easy to see how a step of this kind could be avoided; and if it should be taken, it is evident that it would prove the destruction of public credit at the very moment that it was becoming essential to the public safety.

Clearly, times have changed.  The ability of the government to borrow money on the “public credit” is, without question, indisputable.  So, many of the concerns of the Framers have fallen by the wayside.  Perhaps legitimate under the then circumstances, times, and the new federal government under the Constitution, have changed.  Perhaps, now, it is time to reevaluate the method of federal taxation to be consistent with what was expressed, then, though not put into service because of those concerns.

Some Definitions

From Webster’s 1828 Dictionary:

Apportion, v. t.
To divide and assign in just proportion; to distribute among two or more, a just part or share to each; as, to apportion undivided rights; to apportion time among various employments.

Duty, n.
Tax, toll, impost, or customs; excise; any sum of money required by government to be paid on the importation, exportation, or consumption of goods.  An impost on land or other real estate, and on stock of farmers, is not called a duty, but a direct tax.

Impost, n.
1.  Any tax or tribute imposed by authority; particularly, a duty or tax laid by governments on goods imported, and paid or secured by the importer at the time of importation.

Excise, n.
An inland duty or impost, laid on commodities consumed, or on the retail, which is the last stage before consumption; as an excise on coffee, soap, candles, which a person consumes in his family.  But many articles are excised at the manufactories, as spirit at the distillery, printed silks and linens at the printers, &c.

Capitation, n.
1.  Numeration by the head; a numbering of persons.
2.  The tax, or imposition upon each head or persons; a poll tax.

Income, n.
That gain which proceeds from labor, business or property of any kind; the produce of a farm; the rent of houses; the proceeds of professional business; the profits of commerce or of occupation; the interest of money or stock in funds.

Tarif, n.
1.  Properly, a list or table of goods with the duties or customs to be paid for the same, either on importation or exportation, whether such duties are imposed by the government of a country, or agreed on by the princes or governments of two countries holding commerce with each other.
2.  A list or table of duties or customs to be paid on goods imported or exported.

Considerations

There can be little doubt that the structure of government and apportionment had a purpose, in the minds of the Framers.  At the time of the Federal Reserve Act, 16th and 17th Amendments [1913], the national debt had remained relatively level with that of just after the Civil War, about 2.5 billion dollars.  Within just a few years, it has gone from that stable 2.5 billion to nearly 5,000 times that amount in 2010.  Can there be any question as to the ability of the government to borrow money.  The problem remains, however, that as we continue to borrow, can that debt be repaid.  Taxation has become a means to pay the interest, though it is not sufficient to retire the debt.

By having direct taxes, without apportionment, easily imposed upon us, we have implemented a direct line from our wallets to the government.  Considering that all direct taxes were intended to be apportioned, we can look at the Sixteenth Amendment to see what it really says.  Remember, the Constitution required apportionment, and, it anticipated that direct taxes would be on land, not on the earnings of a workingman.  The Amendment reads:

The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration.

Rather than going in to the legal ramifications of the Amendment, which has yet to be resolved by the courts, we can wonder what “gain” (definition of income) meant, then, as well as, if it was a direct tax upon something not previously granted, why it had to include the exclusion of apportionment.

If our debt had not grown since the civil war, and there was no need for additional revenue, why would Congress propose, and the states ratify, an amendment that created a completely new method of taxation.  After all, they had not exercised all of those taxes anticipated by the Framers, though in the slow evolution of the “income tax” to what it has become, invading our private records for information; multitudes of new officers to seize our property.  After all, from an historical perspective, we can look to the Declaration of Independence to see that such a means as was to be used to collect this new tax was well defined in the objections to the British Rule that resulted in our independency.  From the enumerated complaints in the Declaration, “He has erected a multitude of new offices, and sent hither swarms of officers to harass our people, and eat out their substance”.  What conceivable method of taxation could require more new offices and officers to harass our people and eat out their substance?

Now, with this in mind, what impelled Congress to establish the most burdensome and intrusive means of tax collection possible?  Duties are based upon tariffs, and easily collected at ports of entry.  Excise taxes are collected by those licensed for the particular activity upon which the tax applies.  Finally, land, which doesn’t move, is already assessed as to value, and has collection methods in place.  Instead, the Congress established a new form of taxation, never before conceived as to being practical, and at present, requiring review and collecting from over two hundred million people, along with the forces necessary to review, audit and collect those taxes.  To add to the idiocy of that system, how many of the people’s own hours of life are committed, each year, to the production of the necessary records to satisfy those tens of thousands of agents, taking that time away from them, their families, their leisure, and their productive pursuits?

We need to consider, too, a couple more events in our history that reflect on taxation.  First was the excise tax on WHISKEY, resulting in the Whiskey Rebellion in 1791.  The country needed money.  They imposed a tax on the production of whiskey.  Whiskey was a product of surplus grain. Since the producers of whiskey in Pennsylvania had very little in the way of circulating money, they were unable to pay the taxes.  So, they would either have to stop producing, which meant that they could not barter with the whiskey, or they would have to find some “hard currency” to pay the taxes.  They were put down by force, and all we have to gain from this event is the experience of the effect of misplaced excise taxes.

The other situation lead to the bloodiest war in our history.  Contrary to popular belief, the slave issue was not the primary event leading to the Civil War.  Slavery did not become an issue until well into the war, though states had seceded from the Union even before Lincoln was inaugurated.

Congress, however, had enacted tariffs that were unequal, and detrimental to the South and its economy.  High important tariffs forced them to buy manufactured goods from the North, paying more than what overseas source would require for the same products.  It was based upon forms of taxes more than slavery that forced the disjointing of the Union.

Conclusion

Federal taxes must be Constitutional, and should be as little burden on the people as possible.  Regardless of what the tax is imposed on, the people will ultimately be the source of that revenue.  If on import duties, the people will pay higher prices.  If on excise taxes, the people will pay higher prices.  The importers and manufacturers will simply add the cost to the product to recover the cost of the taxes.

Excise, impost and duties can be applied in an equitable manner if due consideration (not benefit for contributions to campaigns) of their source is considered. 

Let’s look at Duty taxes.  If the duty is on a product produced in a foreign country, and also produced in the United States, a duty tax that penalized the foreign importer in favor of the American producer might be warranted, unless it was high enough to be protective of the American product, allowing excessive profit to the American Manufacturer.  Balance of trade should also be considered with regard to import duties.  If we allow too many imports and reduce our exports, we create an imbalance of trade whereby we owe foreign nations more than they owe us.  Ultimately, this will have a detrimental effect on our whole economy.

Consideration should also be made as to whether a product is a necessity, or, for comfortable life, or, a luxury, something only desired by a small portion of our population.  Consideration of the circumstance that lead to the Civil War, where the duties tended to place an economic burden on an entire region should be avoided.

To provide fairness in such taxes, perhaps a list of general categories could be developed and all products within that category be taxed at the same rate, or a very small range within that category.

Excise taxes pose a different sort of problem.  When the tax is applied to one object, the price of that object is increased.  In many instances, today, the tax on an item may well exceed the cost to produce, distribute, and sell that item.  This amounts to an extremely unfair burden on those who use that product.  It might also provide an economic favor to a similar item that is not subject to the same excise tax.

* * *

Now, let us look at the direct taxes.  At the time of the Constitution, there were two forms of direct tax.  One was on land; the other was a capitation tax, which was an equal tax on each ‘head’.  One form of capitation tax was the poll tax, which was made illegal by the 19th Amendment.  The only tax even remotely similar to the Capitation Tax, that we have, today, though not envisioned by the Framers, is the income tax.  It is not apportioned, though the Framers considered apportioning to be absolutely necessary in both direct taxes and representation.  Surely, the impracticality, along with the expense associated with collecting the income tax, makes it a likely candidate for history, not for a means of efficiently and effectively raising revenue.

Perhaps an alternative in the method of collection, consistent with what Mr. Madison gave us, would be in order.  Suppose we realize that the federal government will never again face the difficulty in receiving monies due from requisitions to the states.  Can there be any doubt that the means, and, more than likely, the willingness to “pay up”, by the states, exists?  Especially, if the 17th Amendment is repealed, thereby returning to the state legislatures the means to resist excessive taxation that they will have to eat out [the] substance of their constituent’s pockets?  Clearly, they understand more than the federal government the economic abilities of their own state.  Clearly, they would best represent us in defending against excessive spending by the federal government.

We can include another benefit to this method of collection.  Today, the federal government collects taxes through their burdensome system.  They then establish a bureaucracy, which is assigned the responsibility to determine redistribution back to the states, based upon evaluation of need determined by people appointed, not elected, into that capacity.  How susceptible to undue influence is such a system?  And, how many dollars are squandered in the re-administration of funds that left the state only to be returned to them?  Finally, how much influence has the redistribution given to the state and local government by simply putting conditions, probably detrimental to the people, on those agencies that are the beneficiary of these returned funds?  Are not our local and state governments more qualified to determine where this money should go to support the needs of the state?  Need we pay federal people to ask state people, whom we also have to pay, to decide the what, where and how much will come back to the state, and pay both ends of this middleman when he is not even necessary if the State collects the funds before settling the requisition, and then retains that which is left?

Some Thoughts on the Election Process

 Gary Hunt
Outpost of Freedom
November 22, 2010

 Introduction

Whether we want to refer to the United States as a Democracy, a Republic or a Constitutional Republic is inconsequential.  It is how the government operates that really matters.

In all three decryptions, it is assumed that there will be elections, and that we will have our choice of candidates — to represent us in local, state, and federal offices.

We must wonder, considering the results of elections, especially in our recent past, whether we have been exercising that franchise in a proper manner — as was intended by the Framers.

Understand that what we are talking about is “electors”.  This is not to be misunderstood as to be referring to the electors in the “electoral college” any more than students of a grade school would be misunderstood to include students of a college.

Though the minimum qualifications may be the same, the various levels of electors are based upon their function.  The function described herein is of those at the lowly level of electors within a Republican (Article IV, Section 4) State.

Constitution

Article I, Section 2, clause 1:

The House of Representatives shall be composed of Members chosen every second Year by the People of the several States, and the Electors in each State shall have the Qualifications requisite for Electors of the most numerous Branch of the State Legislature.

Article I, Section 4, clause 1:

The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations, except as to the Places of chusing Senators.

Article II, Section 1, clause 2:

Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector.

Article IV, Section 4:

The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened) against domestic Violence.

Amendment XIV [1868]

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.  No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Section 2–Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed.  But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State.

Section 5–The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.

Amendment XV [1870]

Section 1–The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude.

Section 2–The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

Amendment [XIX] [1920]

The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex.

Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

Amendment [XXIV] [1964]

Section 1–The right of citizens of the United States to vote in any primary or other election for President or Vice President, for electors for President or Vice President, or for Senator or Representative in Congress, shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or any State by reason of failure to pay any poll tax or other tax.

Section 2–The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

Amendment [XXVI] [1971]

Section 1–The right of citizens of the United States, who are eighteen years of age or older, to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of age.

Section 2–The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

Federalist Papers

In Federalist Papers #52, James Madison says, “Those of the former [House of Representatives] are to be the same with those of the electors of the most numerous branch of the State legislature.  The definition of the right of suffrage is very justly regarded as a fundamental article of republican government.  It was incumbent on the convention, therefore, to define and establish this right in the Constitution.  To have left it open for the occasional regulation of the Congress, would have been improper…”

Later, in that same Paper, he says, “Who are to be the electors of the federal representatives?  Not the rich, more than the poor; not the learned, more than the ignorant; not the haughty heirs of distinguished names, more than the humble sons of obscurity and unpropitious fortune.  The electors are to be the great body of the people of the United States.  They are to be the same who exercise the right in every State of electing the corresponding branch of the legislature of the State.“

Other Historical Sources

Delaware Charter of 1701:

FOR the well governing of this Province and Territories, there shall be an assembly a yearly chosen, by the Freemen thereof…

Address of General Assembly of New York to Lieutenant Governor George Clarke,
September 7, 1737.

Persons that are fairly and freely chosen, have only right to represent the People, and are most likely to do the most effectual, as well as the most acceptable Service to the Public: Whereas those who have recourse to Frauds and unbecoming Arts, to procure themselves to be raised to those Stations, must be under the Government of narrow and selfish Views, unworthy any Representation of a free People, and will no doubt basely submit to those same detestable Measures, to continue themselves (by any Means) in the Exercise of a Trust unjustly acquired.  It is by such as these, that the Liberties of the most free People have been in various Ages of the World, undermined and subverted: And it is to prevent this, as much as we may, that we gave Leave to bring in the Bill, for regulating of the Elections.

William Blackstone, Commentaries 1:165, [1765]

1.  As to the qualifications of the electors.  The true reason for requiring any qualification, with regard to property, in voters, is to exclude such persons as are in so mean a situation that they are esteemed to have no will of their own.  If these persons had votes, they would be tempted to dispose of them under some undue influence or other.  This would give a great, an artful, or a wealthy man, a larger share in elections than is consistent with the general liberty.  If it were probable that every man would give his vote freely, and without influence of any kind, and, upon the true theory and genuine principles of liberty, every member of the community, however poor, should have a vote in electing those delegates, to whose charge is committed the disposal of his property, his liberty, and his life.  But, since that can hardly be expected in persons of indigent fortunes, or such as are under the immediate dominion of others, all popular states have been obliged to establish certain qualifications; whereby some, who are suspected to have no will of their own, are excluded from voting, in order to set other individuals, whose wills may be supposed independent, more thoroughly upon a level with each other.

John Adams, On the Importance of Property for the Suffrage [1776]

James Sullivan, a member of the provincial congress of Massachusetts, corresponded with John Adams in May 1776 when the latter was a member of the Second Continental Congress.  On May 6, Sullivan wrote a letter to Adams in which he discussed the principles of representation and legislation and called for some alterations in the qualifications for voters.  Adams replied in the following letter of May 26, 1776.

IT IS CERTAIN, in theory, that the only moral foundation of government is the consent of the people.  But to what an extent shall we carry this principle?  Shall we say that every individual of the community, old and young, male and female, as well as rich and poor, must consent, expressly, to every act of legislation?  No, you will say, this is impossible.  How, then, does the right arise in the majority to govern the minority against their will?  Whence arises the right of the men to govern the women without their consent?  Whence the right of the old to bind the young without theirs?

But let us first suppose that the whole community, of every age, rank, sex, and condition, has a right to vote.  This community is assembled.  A motion is made, and carried by a majority of one voice.  The minority will not agree to this.  Whence arises the right of the majority to govern, and the obligation of the minority to obey?

From necessity, you will say, because there can be no other rule.

But why exclude women?

You will say, because their delicacy renders them unfit for practice and experience in the great businesses of life, and the hardy enterprises of war, as well as the arduous cares of state.  Besides, their attention is So much engaged with the necessary nurture of their children that nature has made them fittest for domestic cares.  And children have not judgment or will of their own.  True.  But will not these reasons apply to other?  Is it not equally true that men in general,  in every society, who are wholly destitute of property are also too little acquainted with public affairs to form a right judgment, and too dependent upon other men to have a will of their own?  If this is a fact, if you give to every man who has no property a vote, will you not make a fine encouraging provision for corruption by your fundamental law?  Such is the frailty of the human heart that very few men who have no property have any judgment of their own… talk and vote as they are directed by man of property who has attached their minds to his interest.

Upon my word, Sir, I have long thought an army a piece of clockwork, and to be governed only by principles and maxims, fixed as any in mechanics; and, by all that I have read in the history of mankind and authors who have speculated upon society and government, I am much inclined to think a government must manage a society in the same manner; and that this is machinery too.

Harrington has shown that power always follows property.  This I believe to be as infallible a maxim in politics, as that action and reaction are equal is in mechanics.  Nay, I believe we may advance one step farther, and affirm that the balance of power in a society accompanies the balance of property in land.  The only possible way, then, of reserving the balance of power on the side of equal liberty and public virtue is to make the acquisition of land easy to every member of society; to make a division of the land Into small quantities, so that the multitude may be possessed of landed estates.  If the multitude is possessed of the balance of real estate, the multitude will have the balance of power, and in that case the multitude will take care of the liberty, virtue, and interest of the multitude in all acts of government.  I believe these principles have been felt, if not understood, in the Massachusetts Bay from the beginning; and therefore I should think that wisdom and policy would dictate in these times to be very cautious of making alterations.  Our people have never been very rigid in scrutinizing into the qualifications of voters, and I presume they will not now begin to be so.  But I would not advise them to make any alteration in the laws, at present, respecting the qualifications of voters.

Your idea that those laws which affect the lives and personal liberty of all, or which inflict corporal punishment, affect those who are not qualified to vote, as well as those who are, is just.  But so they do women as well as men; children as well as adults.  What reason should there be for excluding a man of twenty years eleven months and twenty-seven days old from a vote, when you admit one who is twenty-one?  The reason is you must fix upon some period in life when the understanding and will of men in general is fit to be trusted by the public.  Will not the same reason justify the state in fixing upon some certain quantity of property as a qualification?

The same reasoning which will Induce you to admit all men who have no property to vote with those who have, for those laws which affect the person, will prove that you ought to admit women and children; for, generally speaking, women and children have as good judgments, and as independent minds, as those men who are wholly destitute of property; these last being to all intents and purposes as much dependent upon others who will please to feed, clothe, and employ them, as women are upon their husbands, or children on their parents.

As to your idea of proportioning the votes of men, in money matters, to the property they hold, it is utterly impracticable.  There is no possible way of ascertaining, at any one time, how much every man in a community is worth; and if there was, so fluctuating is trade and property that this state of it would change in half an hour.  The property of the whole community is shifting every hour, and no record can be kept of the changes.

Society can be governed only by general rules.  Government cannot accommodate itself to every particular case as it happens, nor to the circumstances of particular persons.  It must establish general comprehensive regulations for cases and persons.  The only question is, which general rule will accommodate most cases and most persons.

Depend upon it, sir, it is dangerous to open so fruitful a source of controversy and altercation as would be opened by attempting to alter the qualifications of voters; there will be no end of it.  New claims will arise; women will demand a vote; lads from twelve to twenty-one will think their rights not enough attended to; and every man who has not a farthing will demand an equal voice with any other, in all acts of state.  It tends to confound and destroy all distinctions and prostrate all ranks to one common level.

North Carolina Constitution of 1776, Arts.  7 – 8

VII. That all freemen, of the age of twenty-one years, who have been inhabitants of any one county within the state 12 months immediately preceding the day of any election, and possessed of a freehold within the same county of 50 acres of land, for six months next before, and at the date of the election, shall be entitled to vote for a member of the Senate. 
VIII.  That all freemen of the age of twenty-one years, who have been inhabitants of any one county within the state 12 months immediately preceding the day of any election, and shall have paid public taxes, shall be entitled to vote for members of the House of Commons for the county in which you resides.

Georgia Constitution of 1777, Art. 9

ART. IX. All male white inhabitants, of the age of twenty-one years, and possessed in his own right of ten pounds value, and liable to pay taxes in this state…

Usurpation

We can see that the Constitution recognized that every state was guaranteed “a Republican Form of Government”.  That being the case, the Constitution clearly made the determination of who shall be “electors” a prerogative of each state.  The only federal intervention was to set qualifications as to who may hold office in the legislative and executive branches of government.

The states, in their “republican” capacity could determine who was qualified as an elector for the most numerous branch (House of Representatives or equivalent), and that those so qualified could also participate as an elector in all federal elections.

The “Time, Places and Manner of holding Elections” could be regulated by the Congress, though nothing is said of the qualifications of the electors.  Clearly, then, the qualifications of electors was not within the purview of the Congress and the federal government.

Even the selection of the electoral college was not restricted, rather was simply defined as to the number of such electors and a prohibition against anyone serving in such capacity if they were a “Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States”.

This absence of authority was further recognized in the Federalist Papers, by James Madison, when he explained that “the right of suffrage is very justly regarded as a fundamental article of republican government”, and, that “[t]o have left it open for the occasional regulation of the Congress, would have been improper.”

So, it would be improper, and, a denial of that Republican Form of Government to allow the federal government to intrude upon the right of any state to determine just who could be an elector, and, who could not.

Even after the Civil War, the Congress realized that it could not go where the Constitution provided prohibition against its intrusion.  With the ratification (this raises a whole new question, which will not be addressed in this paper) of the 14th Amendment [1868], Congress realized that they could not determine who could be an elector, and, who could not.

Following the only recourse that the Constitution allowed, they modified the representation, for the number of Representatives to be adjusted based upon denial of allowing some males over twenty-one the franchise of voting, the representation would be reduced by the same proportion as those not allowed to vote to the whole number of such class of males.  Congress realized that they had no authority to remove the right of the state, in its “Republican Form of Government”, to determine who the electors could be.

It is also interesting to note that the anti-slavery amendment was the first, though not the last, to incorporate the wording that “Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation”, as if to provide them authority which was not granted by the Constitution — to legislate outside of their originally granted powers.

It would appear, however, that having been able to pass two Amendments to the Constitution (“anti-slavery and 14th), that they felt that they could go beyond the authority granted by the Constitution (usurpation — the unlawful encroachment or assumption of the use of property, power or authority which belongs to another.), so, two years later [1870], they passed to the states and obtained ratification of the 15th Amendment.

The Fifteenth Amendment, taking advantage of the newly created class of “citizen” (see Two Classes of Citizen), provided that “race, color or previous condition of servitude” could not be cause for denying a member of this new class of citizen to vote — including both federal and state elections.

Though many states had already allowed women to vote, apparently, given the success of previous usurpations, determined that they wanted the states to extent equal suffrage (contrary to what the Constitution and Madison had declared as the right of the states) to women with the 19th Amendment [1920].

By 1964, the 24th Amendment removed the obstacle that required a demonstration of commitment (see “Qualification”, below) to allow one to vote.  Though many states had already dropped the provision for a “poll tax”, the Congress was looking for total equality in the election process.

In a final blow to the authority reserved to the States, in the Constitution, and in the pursuit of equality (submission of the “Republican Form of Government” within the respective states), they removed the centuries old provision for age twenty-one and incorporated a whole new class of voters — those who had yet to have experienced life and its responsibilities, with the ratification of the 26th Amendment [1971].  The argument was that if they could go to war, they should be able to vote, notwithstanding the fact that the Revolutionary War, the Civil War, and, World Wars I and II were fought by young men who had no right to participate. 

It becomes difficult to imagine that a franchise that should be so sacred can be extended even further.  In all of the above, the rights extended to the voting franchise only apply to “citizens of the United States”.  Though without an amendment on the subject, it does seem that Congress has removed the State’s right to determine if a potential elector has that qualification.

The extension of the voting franchise had been subordinated to federal authority, and the pool of participants was increased to allow all to vote.  This, along with current prohibition regarding determination of citizenship, have made American elections open to just about anybody who is present at the time of elections and willing to take the time to vote.

Qualifications

Beginning with the 15th Amendment (above), we see that there has been a change in the method of addressing the franchise.  This, and the subsequent amendments on the subject, do not address qualifications of electors; rather, they talk about the right to vote. 

From Webster’s 1828 Dictionary:

elector, n.

One who elects, or one who has the right of choice; a person who has, by law or constitution, the right of voting for an officer.  In free governments, the people or such of them as possess certain qualifications of age, character and property, are the electors of their representatives, &c., in parliament, assembly, or other legislative body.  In the United States, [also] certain persons are appointed or chosen to be electors of the president or chief magistrate.

freeholder, n.

One who owns an estate in fee-simple, fee-tail or for life; the possessor of a freehold [basically, a land owner],   Every juryman must be a freeholder.

freehold, n. 

That land or tenement which is held in fee-simple, fee-tail, or for term of life.  It is of two kinds; in deed, and in law.  The first is the real possessor of such land are tenement; the last is the right of a man as to such land are tenement, before is entry or seizure.
In the United States, a freehold is an estate which a man holds in his own right, subject to no superior nor to conditions.

Freeman, n. 

1. One who enjoys liberty, or who is not subject to the will of another; one not a slave or vassal.
2.  One who enjoys or is entitled to a franchise or peculiar privilege, as the freemen of a city or state.

From Black’s Law Dictionary, Fifth Edition:

Elector. 

A duly qualified voter; one who has a vote in the choice of any officer; a constituent.  One who elects or has the right of choice, or who has the right to vote for any functionary, or for the adoption of any measure.  And in a narrower sense, one who has the general right to vote, and the right to vote for a public officers.  One authorized to exercise the elective franchise.
[also]  One of the persons chosen to comprise the electoral college.

Freeholder. 

One having title to realty; either of inheritance or for life; either legal or equitable title.  A person who possesses a freeholder estate.

Freeman. 

A person in the possession and enjoyment of all the civil and political rights accorded to the people under a free government.

From colonial times through the 14th Amendment, the colonies/states have always had the right to determine just who should be an elector, and who should not.  In early colonial times, a freeman had to have an estate of 14 schillings.  This means that he had to have 14 schilling above and beyond any debt obligation that he might have.

The Delaware Constitution of 1701 simply requires that one be a “Freeman”.  A Freeman, as defined above, is someone who is not a slave or vassal.  A vassal is one who owed servitude.  And, since credit, as we know it today, was unheard of in colonial times, and if an obligation was owed, it was owed to the point that it would require no less than servitude until the obligation was satisfied, it would seem that a Freeman is one without obligation.

When Lt. Governor Clarke addressed the New York General Assembly, he justified the enactment of a “Bill, for regulating of the Elections”.  In so doing, he made clear that “those who have recourse to Frauds and unbecoming Arts” to secure elections, and, when elected, must be “ of narrow and selfish Views, unworthy any Representation of a free People, and will no doubt basely submit to those same detestable Measures, to continue themselves (by any Means) in the Exercise of a Trust unjustly acquired.”  This was the justification to pass laws necessary to assure that those elected were “fairly and freely chosen”.

If we consider some of the problems we face, today, we can see that they are not new to this country, nor the history of man.  Divisive people pursuing public office will use divisive means to gain and retain that office.

William Blackstone provides us some insight into why ownership of property (freeholder) should be a requisite to becoming an elector.  He explains that those without property have proven to be in “so mean (vulgar, lacking dignity) a situation that they are esteemed to have no will of their own”.  Suggesting that they would subject their vote to influences that should not be considered in choosing proper officers or representatives.

In 1776, North Carolina adopted one of the first Constitutions subsequent to the Declaration of Independence.  In that document, the need to qualify electors for both houses of the legislature, each qualification being different, is clearly understood.  For the higher house, the Senate, ownership (freehold) of fifty acres was required.  For the House of Commons, one need only be a taxpayer.  In both instances, he must be twenty-one years of age.

Georgia, just one year later, required that one have ten pounds of his own money and pay taxes.

There can be little doubt that the understanding that the electors must be both mature (aged twenty-one) and responsible was a condition of becoming an elector.  The idea that someone who was unable to make well for himself was, in any way, competent to make decisions so important to the community, state or federal government, was not worthy of consideration.

One might wonder what good is served by extending the franchise to everybody, without consideration of maturity or ability.  Well, from history, the 14th and 15th Amendments, we know that the federal government wanted to punish the Confederate States for the insurrection by both denying the vote to those who fought for the South and to give the vote to those who had never demonstrated their ability to be responsible for their own lives, which leads to a nearly untenable situation for many decades, putting the ex-slaves as masters over the white man, at least politically.

In a rather curious turn of events, we can see that by 1920, nine states had granted women suffrage.  Obviously, as per the Constitution, the prerogative was left with the states.

Since just a few years before, in 1913, the Seventeenth Amendment, requiring popular vote for Senators, taking the state legislature’s assertion of state input into Congressional decisions away, we see that though only the nine states had enacted suffrage, three quarters of the states ratified the Nineteenth Amendment, granting women suffrage.  One must wonder why only nine states had granted suffrage and then 36 states (of the then 48) ratified the universal suffrage amendment.  Both a usurpation and a statistical quandary.

One of the early measures of participation in the election process was that of status.  If one was a freeholder or freeman, he could participate.  Some had to pay public taxes.  A poll tax was a measure of that capability and some states retained that qualifier in the form of a poll tax.

In 1964, the Twenty-fourth Amendment was ratified, which outlawed this measure of participation and commitment on the part of the elector, “the right of the elector… shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or any State by reason of failure to pay any poll tax or other tax.”  This provision made room for participation by those who could not even take responsibility for their own lives, though they were now qualified to help determine the course and future of the state and country.

Considerations

Both William Blackstone and John Adams provide us some insight into the reasons behind the existence of the qualification for electors.  Clearly, the more one participated in his community, by ownership of land (which is, nowadays, rather easily achieved by those who wish to and are willing to work for it), or, at least, by independency and his ability to care for his family, without reliance upon others.

Age, another consideration of whether one has the maturity and ability to judge and reason, is probably more significant today than in 1776.  Ages fourteen to 17 allowed entry into the military service.  Many college students entered their institution of learning at age 12.  By 21 years of age, most males had already established their own home, and, were far more worldly than those of the same age, today.

Should these requisites be considered in the determination of who is qualified as an elector?

Should electors and candidates have clearly established investment in their community?

Should registration of electors be as carefully scrutinized as many other aspects in our society?

Conclusion

In the early years of this country, nobody ran for office, as they do, today, though their friends and associates would encourage voting for them.  Today, massive campaigns are conducted, many costing in the tens to hundreds of millions of dollars for a job that pays less than two million for a full term.  Therefore, we must carefully consider what effect the qualifications of electors would have on the election process.

Let’s start with the candidates, themselves.  Residence requirements were six months or a year, required citizenship, and, in many instances, required a freehold (land ownership).  Back then, six months in a community would familiarize you with the community and the people who resided in it.  Commuting dozens of miles was impractical, and simply renting space to establish ‘residency’ was unheard of.  Where your family was and lived, was where you had your roots set.

Nowadays, you can buy an expensive house in New York (having moved from Arkansas to Washington, and then deciding that Arkansas was too backward and lacked influence), stop there from time to time to furnish the house, and then, having establish national name recognition, running for Senator from that state in complete violation of the intent, as described above.

This modern age has made transient living quite easy.  That being the case, perhaps, to achieve the intent of investment in the community, the time for residency of a candidate should be longer than it was in our past.

Now, for the electors.  Were Adams, Blackstone and the various constitutions correct in judging that certain requirements imposed upon qualifying as an elector provide a more reasoned and qualified elector?  Surely those who have earned their way in life, and, in so doing, have provided more to the upkeep of the nation (via various forms of taxation); have a vested interest in the course and cost of government by virtue of land ownership; and, are inclined to keep the expense of government down, since they are, ultimately, the ones who most pay the cost of maintaining government, are more qualified to make rational decisions with regard to those who take the reins of government and make decisions that will affect all.

It is unlikely that a corporation would allow employees to vote in the election of officers, though shareholders, by all means, should be allowed to participate.  After all, they are vested in the corporation and have far more at stake than the employees have.  Their concern for the productive direction of the corporation is far greater than that of the employees.

Should a country be any different?  Should those vested, or, at least, productive in support of the country be considered more competent to make rational decisions with regard to the course of the country than those who would be more inclined to vote because of influence, threats, coercion, or, to achieve gain for themselves?

Declaration of Dissolution of Government

When a government, properly instituted under the authority of the People, by virtue of the Constitution for the United States of America, has abrogated its responsibility under said Constitution, and has removed itself from responsibilities imposed upon it by said Constitution, and, when those People choose to 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, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to recognize such Dissolution of Government.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty, and property.  That to secure these rights within a society, governments are instituted among men of that society, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.

When that government becomes destructive of these ends, by usurpation of authority not granted by the People, or by abrogation of responsibilities, it is the right of the people to reinstitute that government on its original foundation and to amend that foundation to assure that such usurpations and abrogations do not recur.

Prudence, indeed, will dictate that governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly, all experience hath shown that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they have become accustomed.  But when long trains of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government, and to provide for new guards for their future security.

Such has been the patient sufferance of these States united under and by said Constitution; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to amend their former systems of government.  The history of all three branches of the present government is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having direct object the establishment of an absolute tyranny over these States.  To provide this, let facts be submitted to a candid world.

• They have created a fourth branch of government (Administrative Agencies) that is independent of, and not subject to the will of the People;
• Their courts have refused to rule upon the Constitutionality of matters before them;
• They have imposed taxes that appropriate fully one-third of the value of one’s labor;
• They have generated a debt obligation on our posterity, still unborn, into the unforeseeable future;
• They have seduced millions of their people into dependence upon that government, at the expense of their neighbors;
• They have secured for themselves benefit packages approaching those realized by members of Royal courts;
• They have allowed the appointment of officials in capacities not recognized by the Constitution, and barred from recourse by the People;
• They have established control over State and local governments by funding and obligations associated therewith;
• The have supported the creation of a standing army amounting to over one million officers who have both civil and military authority given them by the government;
• They have expanded the standing army by granting policing powers to many agencies of government who have no need to be armed and authorized to use those arms;
• They have provided undue immunity and impunity to those who have been given such powers;
• They have failed, in most instances, to subject their agents and employees to trial by jury, so that the judicial process can determine innocence or guilt, instead, allowing heinous crimes against the People to go unpunished;
• They have enacted laws that have effectively limited the selection of government office holders from two primary parties.
• They have endeavored to create empire around the world, which serves not the People of this nation;
• They have waged war without a proper deceleration of war stating who the enemy is and what event will conclude those wars;
• They have enacted laws well outside of any police powers anticipated by the Framers of the Constitution;
• They have subjected States to arbitrary control of the federal government contrary to the guaranteed form of Republican Government within the States;
• They have created Duplicitous Laws, often in conflict with state laws, creating a dilemma whereby if one complies with state law, he finds himself in violation of federal law;
• They have allowed the use of fiat currency, contrary to the Constitution, and have continued this practice under the guise of a national emergency, which has existed for over 80 years;
• They have allowed favored financial institutions to loan money that does not exist to the people, at usurious rates;
• They have loosened the immigration laws that have served this country well through its history, and refuse, now, to enforce those laws that had been enacted to protect our nation from invasion;
• They have taken States of the Union to court for the State enforcing laws that the federal government refuses to enforce;
• They have extended their jurisdiction over the jurisdiction of the States, nullifying the State’s right to a Republican Form of Government;
• They have enacted laws that conflict with duly enacted state laws, subjecting people who are acting lawfully under state constitutions and laws to punishment for violation of federal laws or rules.
• They have assumed jurisdiction in foreign lands, enforced by kidnapping, torture, and assassination;
• They have suppressed traditions held dear, for centuries, in this nation;
• They have removed the rights of traditional churches and have granted rights to churches foreign to our heritage;
• They have assumed authority not granted by the Constitution;
• They have denied the States and the People rights guaranteed and protected by the Bill of Rights;
• They have charged and tried people for exerting their protected rights of Free Speech, Press, Peaceable Assembly, and Bearing Arms, endeavoring to remove those fundamental rights of expressing dissatisfaction of government activities;
• They have denied longstanding and protected usage of the Public Lands;
• They have removed Public Lands from the beneficial use of the Public, in favor of business and foreign interests;
• They have refused to abide by the “Separation of Powers” doctrine by allowing members of the judicial branches of government to hold office in the legislative and executive branches of government;
• They have granted to fictitious entities (corporations, associations, unions and other organizations) rights that are recognized to be granted by the Constitution only to the people, in their individual capacity;
• They have formed alliances with foreign nations which are objectionable to the intent of the Constitution, and grant favors to foreign interests over the interest of the People;
• They have converted the intent of the “Treaties” clause of the Constitution to circumvent constitutionally prohibited enactments, in the form of rules or regulations;
• They have accused large groups of our population, including veterans who have fought for the country, of being a source of threat to that government, naming them as terrorists, while allowing a freely flowing invasion of our country with people known to be hostile to our Constitution and way of life.

Nor, have we been deficient in informing the government of their failure to acknowledge their obligations under the Constitution.  The government has ignored campaigns, letters, phone calls, and demonstrations, and those who have voiced objection have been slandered by representatives of the government, or charged with crimes and incarcerated.  A government that has become so inured to its belief in its own supremacy so as not to recognize their obligation to respond, with truthful answers, to the question posed by numbers of People (Redress of Grievances), proves a disdain for those governed by that government.  We have appealed to their magnanimity and, in return, have been chastised as incompetent and called names indicative of their supposed superiority.  They have been deaf to the voice of the People, and of Justice.

For these reasons, we have found that this government has dissolved itself, and, our allegiance thereto, and forced us into a state of nature, until such time as the Constitution is restored as the Supreme Law of the Land.