ARE WE THE MASTERS OF GOVERNMENT, OR IS THE GOVERNMENT THE MASTER OF US?
~An Exposé on Modern American Free-Range Slavery~
A universally recognized maxim of law states:
“The power which is derived cannot be greater than that from which it is derived.”
The maxim above is what is a called a self-evident truth. Maxims in law are somewhat like axioms in geometry. Bouvier’s Law Dictionary (1856) defines a “maxim” as:
“An established principle or proposition. A principle of law universally admitted, as being just and consonant with reason.”
What I am about to show you in this eye-opening article, is how the American people got hoodwinked by their government to enslave themselves. (1) Sadly very few Americans know the truth about what you are about to read.
“Knowledge will forever govern ignorance; and a people who mean to be their own governors must arm themselves with the power which knowledge gives.” ~James Madison
It is time that the American people arm themselves with the power that knowledge gives…
ULTIMATE POWER IS DERIVED FROM THE PEOPLE
In the United States of America, the government was founded upon the principle that the people, in their collective capacity, are the sovereign (supreme) authority in their state. This was to be the grand experiment of a modern republican government. In Black’s Law 6th Edition, the phase “sovereign people” is defined as:
“The political body, consisting of the entire number of citizens and qualified electors, who, in their collective capacity, possess the powers of sovereignty and exercise them through their chosen representatives.”
Article IV, section 4 of the Constitution for the United States proclaims:
“The United States shall guarantee to every state in this Union a republican form of government…”
A “republican government” is defined in Black’s 6th as:
“One in which the powers of sovereignty are vested in the people and are exercised by the people, either directly, or through representatives chosen by the people, to whom those powers are specially delegated.”
Is there little doubt the people are the sovereign in America? You maybe asking yourself what this has to do with the 14th Amendment. This author’s reply is, EVERYTHING. The 14th Amendment fundamentally altered the nature of citizenship in America, as you will soon see. But first, let’s take a look at the 13th Article in Amendment.
THE THIRTEENTH AMENDMENT
The 13th Amendment states as follows:
“Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.”
Note that the 13th Amendment sounds like it solved the problem of slavery by outlawing “slavery” and “involuntary servitude.” But the reality is IT DID NOT OUTLAW VOLUNTARY SERVITUDE. No law can outlaw voluntary servitude, it is the sovereign right of the person to decide their freedom, not the government. The duel edge of freedom is very simple to understand: freedom, thought of and universally accepted as a natural right, can be surrendered voluntarily. That IS real freedom, the freedom to decide for yourself to be free or not. But, unfortunately, in America’s case, voluntary servitude was created by word magic, forced upon us at the point of bayonet, done so deceitfully via legislated tyranny, with the swift stroke of a pen. Voluntary free-range slavery by deceit.
THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT
The 14th Amendment, which was dubiously “ratified” under extreme military duress and political maneuvering, (2) is precisely what created the modern American free-range slavery that is painfully obvious today. Under the guise of giving the former slave class civil status as citizens, the Radical Republicans enslaved everyone by legislative fiat. (3) James G. Blaine, one such outspoken Radical Republican, wrote a detailed account of the Radical’s motives in a couple of books he authored in the decades following Reconstruction. (4)
The relevant part of section 1 of the 14th Amendment reads as follows:
“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.”
“[S]ubject to the jurisdiction thereof.” Notice that the obvious singular, “the jurisdiction,” is distinct from “their jurisdiction” in the 13th Amendment. (5) This is very important to understand because each jurisdiction is distinct as paramount allegiance was owed to the state and NOT to the federal government. (6) But what is even more important (in this particular article) is the word “subject.” The term “subject” is defined in Black’s Law Dictionary 6th Edition follows:
“Subject. Constitutional Law. One that owes allegiance to a sovereign and is governed by his laws. […] Men in free governments are subjects as well as citizens; as citizens they enjoy rights and franchises; as subjects they are bound to obey the laws. The term is little used, in this sense, in countries enjoying a republican form of government.” (7)
Section 5 of the 14th Amendment reads as follows:
“The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.”
The 14th Amendment is patently unconstitutional,(2) and no power exists in the Congress to legislate a revision to the sovereign body that created it. (8) If that is not very obvious, please reread the maxim of law provided at the beginning of this article. Congress simply is incompetent to revise the very document that created it, UNLESS it is accomplished by a convention of the people in their sovereign capacity as the the several and distinct nations that compromise the federal “republic of republics.” (9) This is the whole point of the article. Are the people master of the government, or is the government the master of the people?
Congress appointed themselves our masters by no rightful authority found in the Constitution, or by the people. PERIOD. End of story. There is no argument that can be made, in fact or in law, that gives Congress this extraordinary power. As this article has clearly established, that legislative body, whose sole purpose is to serve the people who created it, is wholly without any authority to change ITS masters, WE THE PEOPLE OF THE SEVERAL STATE REPUBLICS.
“The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article” (to) “all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof.”
Does the condensed “remix” of the 14th Amendment above show the more sinister side of this self-appointed power? With the stroke of a pen, Congress created a new federal citizenship (10) that exists outside the hard letter of the Constitution, whose admitted intent was to destroy the 9th and 10th Amendments (11) as Blaine clearly admits in his writings, thus committing treason against the people and the states they were sworn to protect. But, only by our own ignorant participation in the current de facto government, (12) do we give it power by the “consent of the governed.” (13) If the American people are to preserve the little freedom they currently possess, then the 14th Amendment absolutely must declared null and void ab initio. It is we who are the masters of the government, and it is about time we the people start acting like it.
Stay tuned for Part 2 of the AMERICAN TROJAN HORSE: The Rise of Corporate Personhood
Jared Dalen – Nevada national
(1) – “If a nation expects to be ignorant and free in a state of civilization,
it expects what never was and never will be.” ~ Thomas Jefferson
“I apprehend no danger to our country from a foreign foe… Our destruction, should it come at all, will be from another quarter. From the inattention of the people to the concerns of their government, from their carelessness and negligence, I must confess that I do apprehend some danger. I fear that they may place too implicit a confidence in their public servants, and fail properly to scrutinize their conduct; that in this way they may be made the dupes of designing men, and become the instruments of their own undoing. Make them intelligent, and they will be vigilant; give them the means of detecting the wrong, and they will apply the remedy.” ~Daniel Webster
“The ideal tyranny is that which is ignorantly self-administered by its victims. The most perfect slaves are, therefore, those which blissfully and unawaredly enslave themselves.” ~Dresden James
(2) – Congressional Record House, June 13, 1967, pg 15641-15646
“When the State of Louisiana rejected the 14th Amendment on February 6, 1867, making the 10th state to have rejected the same, or more than one-fourth of the total number of 36 states of the Union as of that date, this leaving less than three-fourths of the states possibly to ratify the same, the Amendment failed of ratification in fact, and in law, and it could not have been revived except by a new Joint Resolution Of the Senate and House of Representatives in accordance with Constitutional Requirement.” ~Louisiana Judge L.H. Perez [quotes from his treatise on the unconstitutionality of the 14th Amendment], Congressional Record-House, June 13, 1967, pg. 15643
(3) – “Although this race situation may be said to have been the immediate or proximate cause of the adoption of the Amendment, as well as its immediate field of operation, in the mind of the Radicals it had a much wider scope. To them it meant the ultimate centralization of power into the hands of the Federal Government. It meant the death knell of the doctrine of States’ Rights—the ultimate nationalization of all civil rights and the consequent abolition of state control over private rights and duties of the individual. It meant the passing over of the police power of the State into the police power of the national government, thereby giving Congress undefined and unlimited powers whereby it would be enabled to enter fields of legislation from which hitherto it had been barred.” ~Charles Wallace Collins, “The Fourteenth Amendment and the States,” pg. 45 (1912)
(4) – “And in making this extension of citizenship, we are not confining the breadth and scope of our efforts to the negro. It is for the white man as well. We intend to make citizenship National. Heretofore, a man has been a citizen of the United States because he was a citizen of some- one of the States: now, WE PROPOSE TO REVERSE THAT, and make him a citizen of any State where he chooses to reside, by defining in advance his National citizenship-” ~James G. Blaine, “Political Discussions, Legislative, Diplomatic and Popular, 1856-1886,” pg. 64 [emphasis added]
As we can see by the above, the Radicals wanted to REVERSE the system of government and apply it to everyone, not just the former slaves.
“The first section of the Constitutional amendment which includes these invaluable provisions is in fact a new charter of liberty to the citizens of the United States; IS THE UTTER DESTRUCTION OF THE PESTILENT HERESY OF STATE-RIGHTS, which constantly menaced the prosperity and even the existence of the Republic; and is the formal bestowment of Nationality upon the wise Federal system which was the outgrowth of our successful Revolution against Great Britain.” ~James G. Blaine, “Twenty Years In Congress: From Lincoln to Garfield,” pg. 30 [emphasis added]
In Blaine’s own words, they wished to “reverse” the sovereignty by making the sovereign people and states subordinate to the federal government, which is the “utter destruction of the pestilent heresy of State-rights,” and the very definition of TREASON. (See footnote #6 [treason defined] as well as footnote #3 & #11)
(5) – The following is section one of the insidious 14th Amendment. You can also find the further distinction of “the jurisdiction” and “its jurisdiction” from “their jurisdiction” in the 13th Amendment.
“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.” [emphasis added]
(6) – “Northern General Charles Francis Adams, President of the Massachusetts Historical Society, quoted from his address on the occasion of the Lee Centennial at Washington and Lee University:
“The technical argument—the logic of the proposition—seems plain, and, to my thought, unanswerable. The original sovereignty was indisputably in the States; in order to establish a nationality certain attributes of sovereignty were ceded by the States to a common central organization; all attributes not thus specifically conceded were reserved to the States, and no attributes of moment were to be construed as conceded by implication. There is no attribute of sovereignty so important as allegiance–citizenship. So far all is elementary. Now we come to the crux of the proposition. Not only was allegiance—the right to define and establish citizenship—not among the attributes specifically conceded by the several States to the central nationality, but on the contrary, it was explicitly reserved, the instrument declaring that ‘the citizens of each State should be entitled to all the privileges and immunities of citizens in the several States.’ Ultimate allegiance was, therefore, due to the State which defined and created citizenship, and not to the central organization which accepted citizens whomever the States pronounced to be such.””
“The South was Right” by S. A. Steel (1914) pages 27 and 28
“When the Federal Constitution was framed and adopted, –an indissoluble Union of indestructible States, — what was the law of treason; to what or to whom, in case of final issue, did the average citizen owe? Was it to the Union or to his State? As a practical question, seeing things as they were, — sweeping aside all incontrovertible legal arguments and metaphysical disquisitions, — I do not think the answer admits of doubt. If put in 1788, or indeed at any time anterior to 1825, the immediate reply of nine men out of ten in the Northern States, and of ninety-nine out of a hundred in the Southern States, would have been that, as between the Union and the State, Ultimate allegiance was due to the State.” ~Charles Francis Adams, “Constitutional Ethics of Secession,” Dec. 22, 1902, pg. 13
(NOTE: The reason I quote Charles Francis Adams Jr, a Brigadier-General in the Union Army, is not necessarily the side he chose to defend, but also his family history, knowledge of original intent and (more importantly) his discernment of treason.
-Charles Francis Adams Jr. was the great grandson of John Adams and grandson of John Quincy Adams, both of which were U.S. presidents (2nd and 6th, respectively).
-Treason is defined in Article III, section 3, clause 1 as:
“Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort…”
“Levying war against THEM,” not it.
The treason clause of Nevada (to give the reader and idea of a state’s treason clause) is as follows, as provided in Article I, section 19:
“Treason against the State shall consist only in levying war against it, adhering to its enemies or giving them Aid and Comfort.”
Levying war against IT. Treason against the United States is levying war against THEM. By simple deductive reasoning, even without authority to guide us, if treason is against a state, then paramount allegiance is unequivocally due to the states that defined and created citizenship, per the original order as set forth by the Founders.
(7) – “The United States shall guarantee to every state in this Union a republican form of government.” ~Article IV, section 4 of the Constitution for the United States
(8) – “Another point to address is the 14th Amendment to the Constitution for the United States of America is not an “Amendment,” it is a “Revision.” […] “The bottom line is that Congress was and is incompetent to make “Revisions” to the Constitution for the United States of America, that the 14th Amendment is absolutely unconstitutional and therefore “null and void” ab initio for no power of “Revision” exists in the Congress.” ~Utah Supreme Court Justice A.H. Ellett, “The Non-Ratification of the 14th Amendment,” pg. 127 http://www.constitution.org/14ll/14th_amendment_dyett.pdfv
(9) – The “federal republic of republics” references a part of international law known as the Law of Nations, by Emer de Vattel. Vattel’s Law of Nations, which was very popular to the members of Congress according to writings by Benjamin Franklin, is one of the founding authorities often quoted by the courts. In Book 1, section 10 it reads:
“Finally, several sovereign and independent states may unite themselves together by a perpetual confederacy, without ceasing to be, each individually, a perfect state. They will together constitute a federal republic: their joint deliberations will not impair the sovereignty of each member, though they may, in certain respects, put some restraint on the exercise of it, in virtue of voluntary engagements. A person does not cease to be free and independent, when he is obliged to fulfil engagements which he has voluntarily contracted.”
Moreover, William Rawle, a well respected and eminent Philadelphia lawyer, authored, “A View of the Constitution,” a textbook used at the United States West Point military academy in 1825. He wrote the following in Chapter 32, pg 295, regarding “OF THE PERMANENCE OF THE UNION”:
“Having thus endeavoured to delineate the general features of this particular form of government, we shall conclude with adverting to the principles of its cohesion, and to the provisions it contains for its own duration and extension.
“The subject cannot perhaps be better introduced than by presenting in its own words an emphatical clause in the Constitution.
“The United States shall guarantee to every state in this Union a republican form of government, 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.”
“The Union is an association of people of republics; its preservation is calculated to depend on the preservation of those republics.”
If you wish to investigate the federal republic of republics further, which is HIGHLY SUGGESTED to understand the origins of our form of government, you can also read Federalist #9 (Hamilton), #39, (Madison) #40 (Madison), and #85 (Hamilton) as well as “Republic of Republics; or, American Federal Liberty” by Bernard Janin Sage (1881).
(10) – “The fourteenth amendment CREATES and defines citizenship of the United States. It has long been contended, and had been held by many learned authorities, and had never been judicially decided to the contrary, that there was no such thing as a citizen of the United States, except as that condition arose from citizenship of some state. No mode existed, it was said, of obtaining a citizenship of the United States, except by first becoming a citizen of some state. This question is now at rest.”~United States v. Anthony, 24 Fed. Cas. 829, (Case No. 14,459)(1873) [emphasis added]
“Prior to the adoption of this amendment, strictly speaking, there were no citizens of the United States, but only some ONE of them. Congress had the power “to establish an uniform rule of naturalization,” but not the power to make a naturalized alien a citizen of any state.”~Sharon v. Hill 26 F 337, 343 (1885) [emphasis added]
“A citizen of the United States is a citizen of the federal government …” ~Kitchens v. Steele, 112 F.Supp 383 (1953)
“The Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution of the United States, ratified in 1868, creates or at least recognizes for the first time a citizenship of the United States, as distinct from that of the states.” Black’s Law Dictionary, 5th Edition, pg. 591 (1979)
(11) – “We have held also that in adopting the Fourteenth Amendment, the people (9th Amendment) required the States (10th Amendment) to surrender a portion of the sovereignty that had been preserved to them by the ORIGINAL Constitution, so that Congress may authorize private suits against nonconsenting States pursuant to its § 5 enforcement power. Fitzpatrick v. Bitzer, 427 U. S. 445 (1976). By imposing explicit limits on the powers of the States and granting Congress the power to enforce them, the Amendment “fundamentally altered the balance of state and federal power struck by the Constitution.” Seminole Tribe, 517 U. S., at 59. When Congress enacts appropriate legislation to enforce this Amendment, see City of Boerne v. Flores, 521 U. S. 507 (1997), federal interests are paramount, and Congress may assert an authority over the States which would be otherwise UNAUTHORIZED by the Constitution. Fitzpatrick, supra, at 456.” ~Alden et al. v. Maine 527 U.S. 706 (1999) [emphasis added]
“We are thus enabled to see what was the Congressional interpretation of the Fourteenth Amendment. The same force in the Republican Party which secured the adoption of the Amendment has also given us its ideal of the purpose and scope of that constitutional measure by the laws thereunder enacted. They meant to change the form of the American Commonwealth. The States were to exist only in name. Their legislatures and their courts were to be reduced to impotency. The citizens of the States were now to live directly under the surveillance of the Federal Government, looking to it for protection in his private affairs and fearing its avenging power should he transgress the least of its commandments.
“Into the hands of Congress was placed the sovereign power of the Nation. No longer was the National Government to be one of delegated powers, and no part of the sovereign power was to be held any longer by the States. Section one of the Fourteenth Amendment was intended ultimately to create out of the former Union one centralized consolidated government with the supreme power vested in the Federal authorities in Washington. Such was the ideal of the Radicals.” ~Charles Wallace Collins, “The Fourteenth Amendment and the States,” pg. 20 (1912)
(12) – “De Facto Government. One that maintains itself by display of force against the will of the rightful legal government and is successful, at least temporary, in overturning the institutions of the rightful legal government by setting up its own in lieu thereof.”
(13) – “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 the pursuit of Happiness.–That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.” ~Declaration of Independence (1776)
“The fundamental political question is why do people obey a government. The answer is that they tend to enslave them- selves, to let themselves be governed by tyrants. Freedom from servitude comes not from violent action, but from the refusal to serve. Tyrants fall when the people withdraw their support.” ~Étienne de la Boétie
“[Terminating consent] becomes a sacred duty when the state has become lawless or corrupt. And a citizen who barters with such a state shares in its corruption and lawlessness…Every citizen is responsible for every act of his government…There is only one sovereign remedy, namely, non-violent non-cooperation. Whether we advertise the fact or not, the moment we cease to support the government it dies a natural death.” ~Mahatma Gandhi
“You assist an evil system most effectively by obeying its orders and decrees. An evil system never deserves such allegiance. Allegiance to it means partaking of the evil. A good person will resist an evil system with his or her whole soul.” ~Mahatma Gandhi
*IT’S TIME TO UTILIZE OUR SOVEREIGN CAPACITY, REVOKE CONSENT (ALLEGIANCE) TO BE GOVERNED AND PUT THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT BACK IN ITS ENUMERATED DISTRICT WITH A MUZZLE ON.
***WE WILL BE SHOWING YOU HOW TO REMEDY THIS SITUATION IN A FUTURE ARTICLE***