Grand Illusion – 4


America is once again drowning under the waves of bureaucratic tyranny. A never-ending flood of laws, rules, regulations, Codes and more… demanding more time and expense, while adding ever growing layers to the mountains of paper-work upon which the system of control depends.

A boundless, murky sub-governmental climate of secretive, quasi-corporate-governmental, alphabetical-clandestine agencies whose operational mantra, seemingly derived from the demands themselves, is indeed one of total information awareness. A barely, lawful hegemony, which operates with near impunity upon the Public and is well out of control.

A massive, technocratic Borg-like-mentality has been purposely entangled with peoples lives to an extraordinary legal degree, to monitor and classify the resulting data-flows of such demands, thereby, requiring enumerable records, covering every quality of human activity, which in many respects, was once considered strictly, private knowledge.

No longer can people be assured such minute, personal details of their lives is protected from increasing, over-reaching demands. To be secure in ones privacy is treated as hearsay, by those entrusted with the all-powerful authority, of the need to know. People must conform or they will be denied access to even the most basic of public services.

All of this tyrannical control is to ensure, all are bound by highly, secretive designs, of an authoritarian mercantilist religion which has been growing like a cancer in the body of the federal government for a very long time. There is only one way to destroy this out of control, cancerous Beast. Take away the contractual-perpetual-debt it feeds on. Stop feeding the Beast and it will wither and die. People say, but the Beast is so powerful, it cannot be stopped. The Beast makes Laws and we must obey the Law and thus the Beast. Who can make a stand, when Implied Authority, the Religion of the Beast, cannot be defeated.

The power behind this Mercantilist Beast is that of Debt Usury. Take note there does seem to be a significant conflict between Congress and the Commander-President of who actually holds the higher hand of supreme authority, within the belly of the Beast. Since the President cannot make law this ever expanding role of the notorious Executive Order, seems to confirm the federal government has long since lost, not only the Balance of enumerated Powers, but the very essence of its founding principle. Genuine law can do no harm and neither can those who are entrusted with such authority. When the Supreme Court falls silent on the abuse of Implied Powers, the ACTS which spring like weeds as such from its dead soil are no more than opinions of noxious intent.

A quick refresher of forms of the Law:

Sui Juris:

(For oneself) Of his own right. Possessing full social and Civil Rights; not under any legal disability, or the power of another, or guardianship. Having the capacity to manage one’s own affairs; not under legal disability to act for one’s self.

Law: a (1) : a binding custom or practice of a community a rule of conduct or action prescribed or formally recognized as binding or enforced by a controlling authority

(2) : the whole body of such customs, practices, or rules

(3) : common law

b (1) : the control brought about by the existence or enforcement of such law

(2) : the action of laws considered as a means of redressing wrongs; also : litigation

(3) : the agency of or an agent of established law

c : a rule or order that it is advisable or obligatory to observe

d : something compatible with or enforceable by established law

: criminal law protects both public and private rights

: civil law protects exclusively private rights

: political law protects exclusively public rights of public officers and offices within government

de facto:

1. Exercising power AS IF legally constituted

2. Existing in fact; having effect even though not formally or legally recognized

3. Illegitimate but in effect

Uniform Commercial Codes – mercantilist international law

“Lord Camden was quoted by the Supreme Court in the 1886 case of Boyd v. U. S.(116 U. S. 616): “If it is law, it will be found in our books; if it is not to be found there it is not law.”

When we consider the nature and the theory of our institutions of government, the principles upon which they are supposed to rest, and review the history of their development, we are constrained to conclude that they do not mean to leave room for the play and action of purely personal and arbitrary power.

Sovereignty itself is, of course, not subject to law, for it is the author and source of law; but in our system, while sovereign powers are delegated to the agencies of government, sovereignty itself remains with the people, by whom and for whom all government exists and acts. And the law is the definition and limitation of power. It is, indeed, quite true that there must always be lodged somewhere, and in some person or body, the authority of final decision; and in many cases of mere administration, the responsibility is purely political, no appeal lying except to the ultimate tribunal of the public judgment, exercised either in the pressure of opinion, or by means of the suffrage. But the fundamental rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, considered as individual possessions, are secured by those maxims of constitutional law which are the monuments showing the victorious progress of the race in securing to men the blessings of civilization under the reign of just and equal laws, so that, in the famous language of the Massachusetts bill of rights, the government of the commonwealth ‘may be a government of laws and not of men.’ For the very idea that one man may be compelled to hold his life, or the means of living, or any material right essential to the enjoyment of life, at the mere will of another, seems to be intolerable in any country where freedom prevails, as being the essence of slavery itself.YICK WO v. HOPKINS, 118 U. S. 356 (1886)

Lost in the fog of what is and what is not the Law is another crucial concept. Innocent before guilty. In America, another crucial power was vested in the people which has been neglected for so long, most never bother to ponder the deeper truths right before their eyes. The People have the power to defend one another in a Court of Law, via the Jury. The power to Acquit… is the power to stop Tyranny in all its most abusive forms in Law.

Does jury nullification contribute to, rather than mitigate, such judicial misbehavior? No, because it is part of the system of checks and balances itself — a check against the bias of judges and the irrationality and corruption that creeps steadily into the law, as irresponsible legislators and judges think about things other than justice.

Jury nullification is not a violation of the rule of law because it is part of the rule of law. It represents a basic misconception of the principle of the “rule of law” itself to say that it means that everyone absolutely must obey the law until the law can be changed by the appropriate processes. Indeed, that conception of the rule of law would forbid civil disobedience, which was justified by Martin Luther King, quoting St. Augustine, that, “An unjust law is no law at all.” But how can we have the rule of law if we accept something like that? How can people just go around judging for themselves whether a law is just or not? The answer is, that they have to, and that is simply the principle of moral conscience. The rule of law is not contrary to that; for the rule of law is not an injunction to blind obedience. Instead, the rule of law is a principle of the limitation of the authority of government.

To be “ruled by laws, not by men,” is the old expression. Now, a jury nullifying a law or a protester practicing civil disobedience is not engaged in ruling. Instead, they are doing the precise opposite: negating the instructions and actions of government. The principle of the rule of law does the same kind of thing, for it means that the authority and power of government and of individuals in office is limited to those spheres, those issues, and those actions that are specified by the law.

The rule of law denies to government unlimited or discretionary power and authority. The rule of law is thus part of a system of checks and balances to prevent dictatorship and despotism. Because of that, it is curiously the case that you do not need to have laws to have the rule of law: for the whole system of Common Law developed through the practice of the courts in considering claims that someone had committed a wrong. The original purpose of trial by jury in the Magna Carta was similar. The threat, indeed, addressed by the Magna Carta was of the laws and judges of King John. If Magna Carta juries could not nullify the laws of King John, or ignore the instructions and rulings of his judges,trial by jury would have been a useless protection. But the Barons, in obtaining King John’s pledge, as Lysander Spooner wrote in 1852, “were engaged in no such senseless work as that.”

The jury is the last line of defense, the last check and balance, against tyrannical government, if, that is, it is charged with determining the justice of a case and not just with blindly applying the law as given by a judge. It was become a very interesting perversion of the system of checks and balances when, as we are told, the Constitution means whatever the Supreme Court says it means but that we are then expected to obey without resistance. Since the Supreme Court has in general, since the New Deal, interpreted the Constitution to mean exactly the opposite of its original purpose, which had been to establish a federal government of limited and enumerated powers, but which now seems to have gotten us a national government of unlimited and plenary powers, which can legislate or regulate in any matter whatsoever, what we have seen is the destruction of the rule of law, through the arbitrary authority of an irresponsible court, rather than its preservation. When the citizen demands that the government obey the Constitution, and the government replies that it is obeying its interpretation of the Constitution, which gives it authority and discretion far beyond that overthrown in the American Revolution, then the whole idea of the “rule of law” has been turned around to justify the very kind of arbitrary, discretionary, and unaccountable authority that it was supposed to prevent.” Jury Nullification and the Rule of Law, Kelley L. Ross, Ph.D. All Rights Reserved

In addition, this power of nullification is a positive proof that it is the People, who have a Superior Authority over their own government, which is their Servant, and not of any other distant Master. If the people find a law too vague to prove guilt — acquit the Innocent. When the law is found defective, none can be compelled to obey a tyranny. A defective Law is simply fraud upon the People to whom it is imposed.

If a Law declares guilt before proof, denying innocence, it is then a case of political persecution. Such persecutions, which by all standards of law, are also private, by implicit nature and have no power over any other mans Conscience. An opinion of what is law, cannot be the law as written and none are under any power to obey such opinions.

The Constitution, was constructed quite expertly, to forbid private opinions of law, both of distant Kings, as well as the Roman Popes from operating as public law. A crucial fact, so important, it had to be lost in a maze of confusing federal laws, regulations and uniform commercial Codes of the Mercantilist state. If people really understood this crucial Power, then tyranny over America comes to an end as citizens acquit the innocent, no matter what the authoritarians want, demand or claim. Superior rights upheld in Truth, always trump inferior powers of implied lies. The People have this Power, but it has become lost in a confusion of false loyalty. The people are told to be loyal to the State not to one another.

Thus, the power to acquit, thus Nullify any Law, was given not to the Supreme Court, but to the Jury of ones Peers.

“LYSANDER SPOONER (An Essay on the Trial by Jury, 1852): “The bounds set to the power of the government, by the trial by jury, as will hereafter be shown, are these–that the government shall never touch the property, person, or natural or civil rights of an individual, against his consent, (except for the purpose of bringing them before a jury for trial,) unless in pursuance and execution of a judgment, or decree, rendered by a jury in each individual case, upon such evidence, and such law, as are satisfactory to their own understandings and consciences, irrespective of all legislation of the government.”

“THEOPHILUS PARSONS (2 Elliot’s Debates, 94; 2 Bancroft’s History of the Constitution, p. 267): “The people themselves have it in their power effectually to resist usurpation, without being driven to an appeal to arms. An act of usurpation is not obligatory; it is not law; and any man may be justified in his resistance. Let him be considered as a criminal by the general government, yet only his fellow citizens can convict him; they are his jury, and if they pronounce him innocent, not all the powers of Congress can hurt him; and innocent they certainly will pronounce him, if the supposed law he resisted was an act of usurpation.” (Parsons was a leading supporter of the Constitution in the convention of 1788. He declined President Adams’ nomination to be Attorney General and became Chief Justice of Massachusetts).

“4TH CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS (United States v. Moylan, 417F.2d1006, 1969): “If the jury feels the law is unjust, we recognize the undisputed power of the jury to acquit, even if its verdict is contrary to the law as given by a judge, and contrary to the evidence… If the jury feels that the law under which the defendant is accused is unjust, or that exigent circumstances justified the actions of the accused, or for any reason which appeals to their logic or passion, the jury has the power to acquit, and the courts must abide by that decision.


Early jurors often faced physical ordeals in carrying out their duties. They could be starved into submission by being locked up without food or heat until they returned a guilty verdict. The Star Chamber was known to punish jurors who refused to convict by seizing their land and possessions. The 1670 Bushell case marked a major turning point in such practices and is still remembered by an inscribed gold plaque hanging in the Old Bailey. 11 Twelve jurymen refused to convict the Quakers William Penn and William Mead of seditious assembly and were locked up for two nights without food, water, fire, tobacco, or chamber-pot. 12 When this failed to force them to retract their not guilty verdict, the jurors were sentenced to prison until they had paid a fine. 13 Four of the jurors, led by Bushell, refused to pay the fine and challenged their incarceration by a writ of habeas Corpus. 14

 “The Lord Chief Justice released them in a landmark decision establishing the jury as the sole judge of fact. 15 The jury could give a verdict according to its conscience, and jurors could not be penalised for taking a view of the facts which was at odds with the judge. It is under the principles established in Bushell that the jury has been acclaimed as “the lamp that shows that freedom lives” 16 and “the bulwark of liberty.” 17 The jury has complete power over the verdict and is not required to give any explanation or justification. A defendant may appeal against conviction, but an appeal cannot be made simply on the grounds that the jury’s decision is unjustified or mistaken. The right of a jury to exercise judgment according to conscience continued to generate controversy over the next three centuries as juries continued to acquit with impunity even though the law and the evidence clearly indicated the defendant’s guilt. Juries’ refusals to convict radicals charged with publishing seditious attacks on King George III and his government are among the best known exercises of these rights. SALLY LLOYD-BOSTOCK* AND CHERYL THOMAS ** HTTP://

To be judged by a Jury of ones Peers, is the unalienable right every sovereign individual expects in a Court. This fundamental arrangement has been severely restricted over the many decades and miss-construed to diminish the inherent Right, by the impairment of Jury selection by prosecutors and Judges. What they fear, is an informed Jury, which has more Authority over the Law, then the Judge who is adjudicating the Law. One’s Peers are there to Judge actions of Conduct, as well as, the agents of the Court.

If these officials over-step the bounds, if they tarnish evidence, miss-use the rules of evidence, exclude evidence or impinge the Record, then it is the Jury which has the ultimate authority to nullify the proceedings, by giving the Law no such authority to do Harm to the Innocent. It is really is a damn shame this unalienable Right has been swept under the rug and denied by the authoritarians, where it is needed the most: non-jury trials for tax tribunal hearings aka the modern-star chamber. Never trivialize the details. They wear black robes for more then just customary reasons. Like all bad habits, this one alludes of something else.

Now, the second prosecutor, the one pretending to be a judge, cheated his butt off to limit what I could present. In short, he declared that I had to demonstrate what I believed without showing the jury anything I had ever said or written about the issue before. No, I’m not kidding. My web sites, my written report, all the zillions of letters to the IRS, the audio recordings of my meetings with the IRS, my “Theft By Deception” video, the judge declared that I couldn’t show the jury any of it because it was hearsay. Think of the fundamental lunacy of that. It’s like me saying to you, “Prove to me what you believe about religion but you have to prove what you believe without showing me anything you’ve ever said or written on the subject.” Its completely insane, and that’s what the judge did.”—- Larken Rose on Taxes, Freedom and Life After Prison Sunday, January 29, 2012 – with Anthony Wile.”

Constitutional scholars contend that the Bill of Rights was to outlaw, by direct language, Star Chamber Courts in the United States.

Some authorities have said that trials in the Star Chamber were public, but that witnesses against the accused were examined privately with no opportunity for him to discredit them. Apparently all authorities agree that the accused himself was grilled in secret, often tortured, in an effort to obtain a confession and that the most objectionable of the Star Chamber’s practices was its asserted prerogative to disregard the common law rules of criminal procedure when the occasion demanded.” 5 Holdsworth, A History of English Law, 163, 165, 180-197 (2d ed. 1937); Radin, The Right to a Public Trial, 6 Temp. L. Q. 381, 386-388; Washburn, The Court of Star Chamber, 12 Am. L. Rev. 21, 25-31. In re: Oliver, 333 U. S. 257, 68 S. Ct. 499, 92 L. Ed. 682 (1948).

 “Secret law is an abomination,” wrote Professor Kenneth Davis in Administrative Law Treatise 137 in 1970. This quote has been cited in numerous federal cases involving freedom of information act (F. O. I. A.) requests. Two of the cases, Cox v. United States Department of Justice, 576 F.2d 1302, 1309 (8th Cir. 1978) and Stokes v. Brennan, 476 F.2d 699, 701-02 (5th Cir. 1973) are just two examples where the courts argued that secret law is wrong and government agencies, which the Courts are, are to make their documents available for public inspection. It is crucial to public confidence in the courts that judges be seen as enforcing the law and obeying it themselves. U. S. v. Muniz, 49 F.3d 36, 43 (1st Cir. 1995). htm

Tax courts have qualities of Star Chamber Courts. A defendant is presumed to be guilty, has limited rights to present evidence and must deal with a sub-context of conflicting mathematical regulations called Code, which is specifically written to obscure the relationships between the rules and the law which precedes them, in order to falsify intent of the law itself. How can a defendant be guilty of — Willful intention — of Failure to Comply — if the Court cannot produce the very thing —the Law– upon which the “Compliance” is demanded, which the IRS claims has been Trespassed?

What crime has been committed when Due Process is ignored?

A trial without a jury becomes nothing more then a kangaroo court. If the IRS cannot present the Law there is no law. The 16th amendment does not grant unlimited authority over unalienable rights in relation to private Labors of contract. The IRS pulls a bait and switch routine with Codes flying through the air like plates from a master juggler. They ask the wrong question for the right answer and the right question for the wrong answer. Never the right question for the right answer.

A posted speed sign leaves no doubt it is posted. There is no law which gives Congress superior subject rights to a private mans labors of contract. To say otherwise is to say Congress is the Master of all people as slaves. Congress cannot give itself the lawful right to make unlawful law and the IRS is just evil for claiming otherwise.

Only in anti-America is it against the law to earn money, trade, deal or otherwise conduct business without federal interference or meddling in ones private affairs. The implied powers inherent in a mass-capitation tax defeats every limit ever imposed on Congress. To claim this implied power Congress must become the tyrant. There is no good in the economic tyranny such immoral implied powers have allowed to manifest. The evil is in the lies which mask its brutality, both in the union states and around the world. Every false platitude from the lips of the sycophants cheer-leading the federal authority is nothing, but empty, mindless propaganda to fool the masses. Whose Vested Rights came first? Only in anti-America is the answer the federal government.

Deep in this snake-pit of lies infernal is the hand of the devil himself… a freeman is no better then a slave, and an indebted man is worse off then both combined. The chains of contractual-debt money are invisible, until a man questions the very authority in which they are forged and laid upon him. Only then does the agent of the distant Master rise up to strike him down with impunity. The federal, perpetual debt-machine depends on the taxation of every living man who can be placed under its Tyranny, by implied powers.

[Implied powers, in the United States, are those powers authorized by a legal document (from the Constitution) which, while not stated, seem to be implied by powers expressly stated.

When George Washington asked Alexander Hamilton to defend the constitutionality of the First Bank of the United States against the protests[1] of Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, and Attorney General Edmund Randolph, Hamilton produced what has now become the classic statement for implied powers.[2] Hamilton argued that the sovereign duties of a government implied the right to use means adequate to its ends.

Although the United States government was sovereign only as to certain objects, it was impossible to define all the means which it should use, because it was impossible for the founders to anticipate all future exigencies. Hamilton noted that the “general welfare clause” and the “necessary and proper clause” gave elasticity to the constitution. Hamilton won the argument with Washington, who signed his Bank Bill into law.]

Jefferson’s Opinion: “I consider the foundation of the Constitution as laid on this ground–that all powers not delegated to the United States, by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states, or to the people (12th amend.). To take a single step beyond the boundaries thus specially drawn around the powers of Congress, is to take possession of a boundless field of power, no longer susceptible of any definition. The incorporation of a bank, and the powers assumed by this bill, have not, in my opinion, been delegated to the United States by the Constitution.”

This seemingly small detail of “delegated authority” was construed by Hamilton, as opposed to Jefferson, to be less important then using “the right to use means adequate to its ends” as so implied, which sounds proper to the logic from which it springs. However, it is ripe for plucking by those less honorable then Mr. Hamilton, who despite his seemingly earnest intentions, had no idea what was lurking behind that worm, eaten facade he desired to emulate by design.

Hamilton was said to be a man of great intelligence, but he was dead wrong about the actual function of a central bank, operating on behalf of the rented Crown. Or he really was a fool to believe the “implied power” could not be bought, or sold like any other indulgence when the sinner over-reaches the power never delegated. Since history does not support that Hamilton, or his family, after his death at least, received any benefits from his opinion, clearly his trust in those who stood behind the Bank of England, was seriously miss-placed. Therefore, his profound lack of insight into the factual motives, of those resting behind the Crown Bank, allowed foreign despotism where none had been contemplated. This alone has long since refuted his defective assertions of “implied powers” when Sovereign rights themselves are so easily defeated by Contractual Debts of States.

Hamilton also opposed the Bill of Rights: “According to Alexander Hamilton, a Bill of Rights would even be dangerous, in that by specifying “various exceptions to powers” not granted, it “would afford a colorable pretext to claim more than were granted. The Federalist No. 84, p. 513 (C. Rossiter ed. 1961).

Anti Federalists, however, insisted on more definite guarantees. Apprehensive that the newly established federal government would overwhelm the rights of States and individuals, they wanted explicit assurances that the federal government had no power in matters of personal liberty.” T. Curry, The First Freedoms: Church and State in America to the Passage of the First Amendment 194 (1986).

Why Hamilton never questioned the deeper fallacy of the unrestricted use of power [might makes right] cannot be fully judged, but the power itself already has a noose, from which to hang. Jefferson is still essentially right today: “It would reduce the whole instrument to a single phrase, that of instituting a Congress with power to do whatever would be for the good of the United States; and, as they would be the sole judges of the good or evil, it would be also a power to do whatever evil they please.

Allowing a foreign, hostile central-bank to operate on the Peoples money with virtual impunity is stupendously stupid. It is also much easier to steal the Peoples treasury by co-mingling the Credit of the money.

One great object of the Constitution is to permit citizens to structure their private relations as they choose subject only to the constraints of statutory or decisional law. [500 U. S. 614, 620]”

The National Bank Act of 1864, which was the determining financial authority of the United States until November, 1914, did not permit banks to lend their credit. Consequently, the power of banks to create money was greatly limited. We did not have a bank of issue, that is, a central bank, which could create money. To get a central bank, the bankers caused money panic after money panic on the business people of the United States, by shipping gold out of the country, creating a money shortage, and then importing it back. After we got our central bank, the Federal Reserve System, there was no longer any need for a money panic, because the banks could create money.

However, the panic as an instrument of power over the business and financial community was used again on two important occasions, in 1920, causing the Agricultural Depression, because state banks and trust companies had refused to join the Federal Reserve System, and in 1929, causing the Great Depression, which centralized nearly all power in this country in the hands of a few great trusts.

A trade acceptance is a draft drawn by the seller of goods on the purchaser, and accepted by the purchaser, with a time of expiration stamped upon it. The use of trade acceptances in the wholesale market supplies short-term, assured credit to carry goods in process of production, storage, transit, and marketing. It facilitates domestic and foreign commerce. Seemingly, then, the bankers who wished to replace the open-book account system with the trade acceptance system were progressive men who wished to help American import-export trade. Much propaganda was issued to that effect, but this was not really the story.

The open-book system, heretofore used entirely by American business people, allowed a discount for cash. The acceptance system discourages the use of cash, by allowing a discount for credit. The open-book system also allowed much easier terms of payment, with liberal extensions on the debt. The acceptance does not allow this, since it is a short-term credit with the time-date stamped upon it. It is out of the seller’s hands, and in the hands of a bank, usually an acceptance bank, which does not allow any extension of time. Thus, the adoption of acceptances by American businessmen during the 1920’s greatly facilitated the domination and swallowing up of small business into huge trusts, which accelerated the crash of 1929.

Trade acceptances had been used to some extent in the United States before the Civil War. During that war, exigencies of trade had destroyed the acceptance as a credit medium, and it had not come back into favor in this country, our people preferring the simplicity and generosity of the open-book system. Open-book accounts are a single-name commercial paper, bearing only the name of the debtor. Acceptances are two-name paper, bearing the name of the debtor and the creditor. Thus they became commodities to be bought and sold by banks. To the creditor, under the open-book system, the debt is a liability. To the acceptance bank holding an acceptance, the debt is an asset. The men who set up acceptance banks in this country, under the leadership of Paul Warburg, secured control of the billions of dollars of credit existing as open accounts on the books of American businessmen. Governor Marriner Eccles of the Federal Reserve Board stated before the House Banking and Currency Committee that: “Debt is the basis for the creation of money.” The Money Creators, By Eustace Mullins.

In a Nation plagued by the results of allowing Congress, an indulgence of “implied” rights, not enumerated by the Constitution, thus not Delegated by Consent, the consequence has cost the people more money, blood-shed and Harm, then any opposite source, of proper Enumerated powers. Look at each source of power as a weight upon the scale: which has caused the greater Injustice? Trace each foul creature of “implied power” back to the totalitarian swamp it crawled from and dispute the injustice even as the Beast, threatens you with death for even questioning its Authority. Only something with no Conscience can be ascribed to as a beast, which is why I chose this metaphor to describe something which has long since discarded the very necessity of its use.

The fallacy of ‘might makes right’ is laid bare accordingly. Enumeration of powers acts as a conscience upon the Constitution, thus Congress, to restrain its Might and do no Harm. The absurdity of “implied powers” is that it destroys the very thing it preaches. A power without a grain of conscience is no more then tyranny… does the Constitution grant commercial tyranny over the Union States? According to Jefferson that would be an emphatic no… the Constitution cannot destroy the Vested Rights as given. Therefore, Congress has no authority to change the Law as Vested in the Constitution. Only in anti-America can Congress do the exact opposite of the Law and claim that is the law of Implied Powers.

To “regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the States, and with the Indian tribes.” To erect a bank, and to regulate commerce, are very different acts. He who erects a bank, creates a subject of commerce in its bills, so does he who makes a bushel of wheat, or digs a dollar out of the mines; yet neither of these persons regulates commerce thereby. To make a thing which may be bought and sold, is not to prescribe regulations for buying and selling. Besides, if this was an exercise of the power of regulating commerce, it would be void, as extending as much to the internal commerce of every State, as to its external.

For the power given to Congress by the Constitution does not extend to the internal regulation of the commerce of a State, (that is to say of the commerce between citizen and citizen,) which remain exclusively with its own legislature; but to its external commerce only, that is to say, its commerce with another State, or with foreign nations, or with the Indian tribes. Accordingly the bill does not propose the measure as a regulation of trace, but as ‘’ productive of considerable advantages to trade.” Still less are these powers covered by any other of the special enumerations.” Jefferson’s Opinion on the Constitutionality of a National Bank : 1791

I wish it were possible to obtain a single amendment to our Constitution – taking from the federal government their power of borrowing.” Thomas Jefferson, 1798 {An obligation of Contract.}

The winding road to the 16th amendment is paved with the results from “implied powers” and it must be judged as such in conjunction with the never-ending schemes involving the issuance of contractual-debt money thus Usury.

The History of the US Tax System can be summed up in one paragraphPrior to the enactment of the income tax, most citizens were able to pursue their private economic affairs without the direct knowledge of the government. Individuals earned their wages, businesses earned their profits, and wealth was accumulated and dispensed with little or no interaction with government entities. Passage of the 16th Amendment to the Constitution would forever change life in America and not for the better.” American Thinker

The Federalist position on implied powers was also upheld by Chief Justice Marshall:

“The State of Maryland, which was trying to tax the Bank out of existence, argued that the “necessary and proper” language permitted Congress only to choose means that were absolutely necessary to carry out those powers. Marshall rejected this reading, which would make the government “incompetent to its great objects.” The federal government must collect and spend revenue throughout the United States, Marshall observed, and so must quickly transfer funds across hundreds of miles. “Is that construction of the constitution to be preferred which would render these operations hazardous, difficult, and expensive?” Without implied powers, Congress’s power “to establish post offices” could not entail the ability to punish mail robbers and might not even entail the power to carry letters from one post office to another. “It may be said, with some plausibility, that the right to carry the mail, and to punish those who rob it, is not indispensably necessary to the establishment of a post office and post road.” He concluded that Congress could choose any convenient means for carrying out its enumerated powers.”

The argument presented here proceeds on the assumption, the obvious use of a power, does not limit the abuse of the power, so long as the power is used to accomplish the great objects by whatever means deemed convenient. The arrogance of this assumption betrays the political source of its convictions. The Federalists were quite biased to the former qualities of British rule and the lingering effects of its powers over the judicial. Congress, was not weakened by the enumerations of its powers, nor hampered by their qualities to establish necessary advancements where applicable.

This strange notion that only the ‘implied powers’ never so expressed by the Constitution, can somehow fulfill the greater objectives of its use, is no different then saying the rules of chess are insufficient until the rules of checkers are added to make them whole. The objective of the Constitution was not to enable Congress, to rule over every nook and cranny of human endeavors, or mock, the very essential principles of individual rights, being that quality of self-rule. Even where there are no restrictions on enumerated powers, Congress, still has to answer for what it does and why. The power to ordain a law does not excuse Congress, from the consequences, of its own faulty reasoning. With-out a means of self-correction, it is quite difficult to rein in the over-reaching effects, when there is no clear line of separation, between the power and the want of its exertions.

Men in power always want more power. The ruthless manipulations, such wants soon endeavor, never cease to manifest themselves in political hands. Municipal corruptions are the result of reducing public good, of any purpose of virtue, leaving only the vices to grease the wheels, which upon the powers turn. The goal of such power seeking is to be free of any limitations in any sphere of influence where such powers can coincide with the greatest force of mutual benefit.

The limitations upon Congress, or any branch of government is to place a formidable boundary around such malleable powers whose keepers are too weak, too complacent and too lacking in a superior back-bone, from bending to the Wills of those seeking such advantages. Only by such limitations are the more powerful kept, from simply binding the powers of congress, to their private matters of greedy ambitions, and thus, chain the government, like a dog, to the heel of a more powerful master. The greed for more power has to have a limit, or it becomes convenient for power brokers to sell whatever power congress can shake from the implied power tree and set loose for any purpose that is politically expedient. Inflating powers, by the gimmick of implied powers, erodes the balances necessary to keeping corruptions of government from becoming the only power left.

Hamilton’s devoted disciple, John Marshall, was appointed chief justice of the United States in 1801 and served in that post for more than three decades. His career was a crusade to rewrite the Constitution so that it would become a nationalist document that destroyed states’ rights and most other limitations on the powers of the centralized state. He essentially declared in Marbury vs. Madison that he, John Marshall, would be the arbiter of constitutionality via “judicial review.” The Jeffersonians, meanwhile, had always warned that if they day ever came when the federal government became the sole arbiter of the limits of its own powers, it would soon declare that there were, in fact, no limits on its powers. This of course is what the anti-Jeffersonians wanted — and what has happened.

In the case of Martin v. Hunter’s Lessee Marshall invented out of thin air the notion that the federal government had the “right” to veto state court decisions. Marshall also made up the theory that the so-called Supremacy Clause of the Constitution makes the federal government “supreme” in all matters. This is false: The federal government is only “supreme” with regard to those powers that were expressly delegated to it by the free and independent states, in Article 1, Section 8.

Marshall also repeated Hamilton’s bogus theory of the American founding, claiming that the “nation” somehow created the states. He amazingly argued that the federal government was somehow created by “the whole people” and not the citizens of the states through state political conventions, as was actually the case. In the name of “the people,” Marshall said, the federal government claimed the right to “legitimately control all individuals or governments within the American territory” (Edward S. Corwin, John Marshall and the Constitution, p. 131).

“All of the Hamilton/Marshall nonsense about the founders having created a monopolistic, monarchical government and having abolished states rights or federalism was repeated for decades by the likes of Supreme Court Justice Joseph Story and Daniel Webster. Story was “the most Hamiltonian of judges,” wrote Clinton Rossiter. His famous book, Commentaries on the Constitution, published in 1833, could have been entitled “Commentaries on Alexander Hamilton’s Commentaries on the Constitution,” says Rossiter. He “construed the powers of Congress liberally,” i. e., meaning there were virtually no limits to such powers; and “upheld the supremacy of the nation,” i. e., of monopolistic, monarchical, and unconstitutional government. Stories Commentaries provided a political road-map for “the legal profession’s elite or at least among the part of it educated in the North during the middle years of the nineteenth century,” wrote Rossiter.” Doomed from the Start: The Myth of Limited Constitutional Government in America by Thomas J. DiLorenzo

There are of course substantial numbers of people who sincerely believe that without these ‘implied powers’ society would fall back into the dark ages, where all would be lost as vengeful right-wingers turned the country into a poverty ridden wasteland of wretched conditions and on the other side; there are those that would have Congress, allow every possible socialist policy, so deep into the red zone, the collectivist state would soon be demanding no property rights or any form of self determination, as a condition of citizenship.

These are of course generalizations, but the essential point is most of what is thrown around the political rings of America today is fear tactics. Fear is a powerful motivation across the whole of society. Especially, when people perceive the opposite side of their own political camp, is getting better advantages, as political policies soon enough become factual activities.

The power of fear when used in the all-powerful, propaganda-machine, deployed by the media conglomerates, can go head-to-head anytime, with Congressional powers, implied or otherwise, in the arena of political opinions. The fear of losing money might well be one of the strongest economic powers at work in the world today, but can Congress, pass a law using such implied powers to make that fear go away?

Which implied power will temper such fears when they become irrational, or banish from the Market the components of its most negative forces, as such fears eat away at the courage of people to over-come the hardships, or disasters which ruin their personal lives? No… Congress has no such magic powers to make the cause of all misery and miss-fortunes simply go away with a policy, or a clever law. In the face of true destructive forces Congress has barely the power to even address the causes, much less, the results of long term malformations such ruin has wrought upon the people not so fortunate, as to escape personal destruction by forces beyond their control.

In the areas of political improvements, such implied powers, have had such an opportunity, over the last two-hundred years to really make a difference, and yet, the Congress, has never used these amazing powers to transform the ugly realities of America into something more beneficial. Where are these amazing powers when it comes to the really important factors of long-term social evolutions of progress, as measured by positive improvements, and not the simplistic, one-dimensional photo-ops which often pass for the proof of such actions?

Why is it the use of such powers is always for a select few, a limited group of already well protected and well privileged, whose relationships to the money powers is the real crux of the lavish, never-ending support?

There are many who always argue in favor of Congress, using these non-constitutional powers to advance social causes, but always when the real benefit is to make enormous new fortunes for the same power circles of the well-entrenched. Without any limits on Congress, the people are at the mercy of the wealthy who will use any power they have to force their paid for politicians to do what-ever they want in the manner so desired. The Constitution was not a perfect document. Jefferson tried to persuade his fellow law-makers to rid the country of slavery and the majority simply did not want to hear the truth he and others were trying to get through to them. A few ticks of the moral clock today and slavery might well become the norm once again. The 13th amendment, as written, is actually quite weak in its timid assertions.

The profit motive behind the demand of “powers” has to be kept in plain sight, for without such desires for tangible gains of wealth, the exercise of such powers, as enumerated, or implied, the seekers of the rewards such powers grant must go elsewhere to find them. The commerce clause is another enumerated power which has been rolled in the thick coating of implied powers and served up, as the means to an end, well beyond any intentions of those who drafted the power itself. What the Federal power intended was to keep peace between the States by restricting their powers to tax one another, thereby, inhibiting the commerce between them.

[Commerce Defined]

–“Because the regulation of commerce is the regulation of intercourse “between” different powers, and because this intercourse is regulated through duties on imports, leaves us with the only question of what exactly is an “import.

–Chief Justice Marshall in Brown v. Maryland (1827) says the “lexicons inform us they (imports) are thing’s Imported.” ” He continues, “If we appeal to usage for the meaning of the word, we shall receive the same answer. They are the articles themselves which are brought into the country.” Marshall goes on to state the articles of import are those “only which are intended for sale or consumption in the country.”

It should be apparent how such things as “labor” or “services” cannot come under the regulation of commerce because, for example, “services” are not property imported. It is also rather absurd to argue regulating the transportation of “passengers” is a regulation of commerce in light of the unmistakable fact the United States no longer recognizes a property in men for purposes of trade. This is what made regulating the foreign slave trade awkward under the Commerce Clause because as Madison put it, human beings were not “property,” and “slaves are not like merchandise, consumed, etc.”

England and the States never asserted they were regulating commerce when they passed laws regulating manufactures, labor or fixing the price of certain commodities.

The word “commerce” as employed under the Commerce Clause also does not extend any powers over buying and selling. Thomas Jefferson said, “[t]o make a thing which may be bought and sold is not to prescribe regulations for buying and selling . . . if this were an exercise of the power of regulating commerce, it would be void, as extending as much to the internal commerce of every state, as to its external.” In response to Jefferson, Hamilton agreed buying and selling “falls more aptly within the province of the local jurisdictions than within that of the general government.”

Consider also that to regulate the value of money, to make laws for bankruptcies, or to “fix the standard of weights and measures” are all-important ingredients of commerce, yet the Constitution specifically enumerates these powers for Congress to exercise. The reason must be that the regulation of commercial intercourse acts only on intercourse “between” nations and States and not “within” where municipal jurisdiction could be exerted.

It is no wonder that the framers are frequently found referring to the regulation of commerce as the “regulation of trade” because this commerce is the regulation of those articles of trade imported for the purpose of consumption.

James Madison explains the “very material object” of the power to regulate commerce among the States in Federalist No. 42: A very material object of this power was the relief of the States which import and export through other States, from the improper contributions levied on them by the latter. Were these at liberty to regulate the trade between State and State, it must be foreseen that ways would be found out, to load the articles of import and export, during the passage through their jurisdiction, with duties which would fall on the makers of the latter, and the consumers of the former. We may be assured by past experience, that such a practice would be introduced by future contrivances; and both by that and a common knowledge of human affairs, that it would nourish unceasing animosities, and not improbably terminate in serious interruptions of the public tranquility.

Madison describes the power as a “constitutional remedy” in this 1832 letter to Professor Davis of the University of Virginia: The power to regulate commerce among the States was well known and so explained by the advocates of the Constitution when before the people for their consideration, to be as a necessary control on the conduct of some of the importing States toward their non-importing neighbors. A recurrence to the angry legislation produced by it among the parties, some of whom had passed commercial laws (duties and imposts on articles of import) more rigid against others than against foreign nations, will well account for the constitutional remedy.”

The power to proscribe what articles of imports shall be restricted or prohibited through the laying of duties on imports for purposes of protecting or promoting American manufactures and the rules for executing this power was the only power acknowledged, approved and adopted. Rules for executing this power can include customhouse regulations, pilotage, forfeitures, laws against smuggling (avoiding customs), navigation points, etc.

Because the power acts only on commercial intercourse “between” separate powers, limits the power to importation and anything that could burden the introduction of imports through taxes. Only Congress is authorized to burden the introduction of foreign imports.

The sole purpose behind the regulation of commerce “between” powers being for the promotion or protection of manufactures against foreign competition dispels the judicial fable of internal economic activities or markets of States is related to the commercial intercourse “between” them.

This explains why Congress never showed any interest over internal commercial activities among the States or their markets as evidenced by the lack of any laws over the subject or acts of acquiring and maintaining vital data over commerce among the States. On the other hand, the entire interest of the nation, as a nation, was with foreign commerce where rules were made and statistics kept.

As a consequence of the power to regulate commerce among the States being void of any affirmative powers for Congress to exercise over the States, and because the power is limited to laying a tax on imports, the power cannot be appealed to in order to make any act of Congress over markets or commerce of the States necessary and proper.

For the court to deny the purpose, custom and usage of the term “to regulate commerce” “between” States and nations in order to continue empowering Congress with greater authority over the States to do what is forbidden is repugnant to the Constitution.” How States & Nations Regulated their Commercial Intercourse by P. A. Madison on June 30th, 2011

There is a much deeper, and thus hidden reason, for this blatant, gross miss-use of an indirect, Corporate Excise tax upon individuals. It is well established, a non-corporeal person, is a fiction, of legal presumption.

I term such subjective things as “infernal objects” for they do not possess any qualities of the Living. The fiction that a corporation can have equal rights to a Living Being is a privilege otherwise unattainable. An Infernal Object has no unalienable rights and can make no claim to possess the very thing it has never known: life itself. This exceptional difference is the Why, one cannot be treated as the other. Living people do not exist at the pleasure of the Congress. Congress can make no law of a subject forever removed from its constitutional authority.

The dubious reasoning of the Prosecutors, on behalf of the IRS, cling to a false source(16th ) while dancing around the actual truth like demented priests in a witch-hunt. The Treasury wrote the infamous mass-tax regulations in defiance of actual law. Persecution is not a power of Congress, or federal judges. The Law cannot be invisible and yet it is never produced, only referenced, in circular oppositions of reason. This wretched result is the direct consequence of “implied powers’ being handed over to a never-ending chain of agents, whose ruthless endeavors intensifies in direct proportions to the resistance of wrongs thus assailed. This is the Tension Function operating in the background of all such conflicts of Will. People fight back, but the deck of law affords them no relief. More importantly most people never realize the sly misuse of the “Incomes” reference to two distinct types, each quite different from the other. This miss-understanding favors the Courts, in some cases, but not always.

If the movant is not required to plead the authorizing law, the defendant must show there is no possible way the tax can be legal. If there is no requirement to plead a law imposing a tax, it is no different than enforcing a law that does not exist. Until the IRS is required to aver the constitutional and statutory source for their exercised authority, challenges regarding the law, will not be effective. Courts will not pass upon constitutional questions not raised in the pleadings.” “Korematsu v US, 323 US 214”

Taxation has been adjudicated to be a matter of sovereignty, and that over which the government is not sovereign is not a suitable basis for taxation.” McCulloch v Maryland, 17 US 316 (1819).

The U. S. Constitution is accepted as a grant of authority to the government from the people and any authority not granted is retained by We the sovereign people.” Adkins v Children’s Hospital, 261 US 525, 559 (1923).

If the right to pursue a livelihood is retained by “We the [sovereign] people,” how then does the government acquire the necessary sovereignty to make the pursuit of our livelihood a suitable object for taxation? A sovereign is not subject to taxation.” Pittman v Home Owners Loan, 308 US 21 (1939).”

“All subjects over which the sovereign power of a state extends, are objects of taxation; but those over which it does not extend, are, upon the soundest principles, exempt from taxation. This proposition may almost be pronounced self-evident. In America, the powers of sovereignty are divided between the government of the Union, and those of the States. They are each sovereign with respect to the objects committed to it, and neither sovereign with respect to the objects committed to the other.” [ M’Cullock v. Maryland, 17 U. S. 316, 410] Chief Justice Marshall

“Wisconsin v J. C. Penny, 311 US 435, 444 (1940). The government has not given anything when an individual pursues a livelihood. The occasion to pursue a livelihood existed long before government was created; it will continue long after this government is gone; it is not a creation of the government for which the government can ask a return. The government does not grant or give a constitutional right; the government exists to protect constitutional rights. Declaration of Independence, Weeks v US, 232 US 383, 392 (1914).

“A sovereign citizen cannot properly be required to purchase as a mere privilege from government that which he already possesses as a sacred right secured by the constitution.”

“[T]he well-settled rule … the citizen is exempt from taxation unless the same is imposed by clear and unequivocal language, and that where the construction of a tax law is doubtful, the doubt is to be resolved in favor of those upon whom the tax is sought to be laid… SPRECKELS SUGAR REFINING CO. v. MCCLAIN, 192 U. S. 397 (1904)”

“In 1895 the Supreme Court decided that Congress could not impose an income tax directly on individuals, because that would violate the constitutional requirement that all “direct” taxes be apportioned (that is, divided in a proportionate way) among the states on the basis of their population.

{The 1909 act defined the corporate tax as an excise tax and therefore as an “indirect” tax that was not subject to apportionment. The constitutional problem of imposing an income tax without apportionment was resolved with the passage of the Sixteenth Amendment in 1913, so that from that point on the tax could be redefined as a direct income tax:

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.}

When trying to determine the specific purpose of the 16th amendment, it is of paramount importance to make such determinations where the contentions arise:

Article 1, 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. [The ‘Three-Fifths’ clause determines how many votes in the House of Representatives each slave state would have, and how much each state would pay in taxes.]

Article 1, Section 9, Clause 4

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

[Capitation taxes, so far as they are levied upon the lower ranks of people, are direct taxes upon the wages of labor and are attended with all the inconveniences of such taxes. The impossibility of taxing the people, in proportion to their revenue, by any capitation, seems to have given occasion to the invention of taxes upon consumable commodities. The state not knowing how to tax, directly and proportionably, the revenue of its subjects, endeavors to tax it indirectly by taxing their expense, which, it is supposed, will in most cases be nearly in proportion to their revenue. Their expense is taxed by taxing the consumable commodities upon which it is laid out. Adam Smith]

A Capitation tax meets the definition of the “mass” income tax on living individuals exactly.

From a report by The Congressional Research Service. Report No. 84-168A, 784 / 725 titled “Some Constitutional Questions Regarding the Federal Income Tax Laws”, dated May 25, 1979 and updated Sept. 26, 1984—- “The Supreme Court, in a decision written by Chief Justice White, first noted that the Sixteenth Amendment did not authorize any new type of tax, nor did it repeal or revoke the tax clauses of Article I of the Constitution, quoted above. Direct taxes were, notwithstanding the advent of the Sixteenth Amendment, still subject to the rule of apportionment and indirect taxes were still the subject of the rule of uniformity. Rather, the Court found that the Sixteenth Amendment sought to restrain the Court from viewing an income tax as a direct tax because of its close effect on the underlying property.” (pg 5)

Both of these Articles-Sections were significantly changed by the 16th amendment. The first defect which arises, (AS a result of the Declaration of Independence itself) is in the separation of classes of Persons, one of which is free (which does not address higher classes at all), one which is indentured and one bound by slavery. Two of which were not allowed to vote. Since slaves were considered property like cows and land, the real argument was over how to use them for general population counting for said elected Representation and thus taxation by Representation.

In addition, Article S-2 C-3 was all about determining Exclusion from the voting franchise, and the transition from ‘a requisition of revenue’ to a Direct tax based on the same exact Census computations. Start with the count, include persons by the rules so stated, compute by said rules the numbers of representatives afforded by such numbers and IF there was a need for a Direct tax, this same count(census) provided the portions of each States required share, of said direct tax. Every ten years is substantially different, then a direct capitation mass tax which operates 24/7 and 365 days a year. A crucial fact too small to be noted apparently, is that the tax was on the States, as measured by the census count and thus apportioned accordingly.

The census function also demonstrates another crucial quality of constraint upon the taxing power itself — Only to be used in emergencies (Unlike a never ending emergency predicated on numerous war power acts) and why was it was chained like a dog, to the Voting Franchise itself. The well defined principle states: the more distant the citizen from the taxing power, the less responsive representation becomes to the citizens oversight to his delegation of Consent. If the man I helped place in the Office, no longer has to look me in the eye when he reaches for my wallet, then we have a problem.

Without this qualification by Consent, the Authority of the responsibilities of the Office, become self-fulfilling mandates, contrary to consent. The representative personally elected, does not have the “authority of law” to himself, he merely occupies the “Office” —- which is Vested of those Enumerated powers and nothing else. To say otherwise, removes the binding restrictions upon the man— FROM the OFFICE— and places the man in the same seat as tyranny— for he has afforded of Himself, the Powers, of which he has no Right to take from the Office, of which he was Elected.

This substantial balance of Citizen powers of Consent to Elected powers of Office, was impaired by the co-mingling of purposes, by the 16th amendments corruptions of the voting and direct tax clauses. The amendment modified a crucial aspect of this balance of powers, by relieving the Congress, of the positive affirmation of the power itself. The Constitution, cannot be changed to create, or inflict Harm, where no such harm had existed.

“In Federalist Paper #54, Madison touches on another reason for relating direct taxation to representation. “States would be less likely to inflate their population figures (to gain added political representation) since this would also increase their tax burdens [IF] a direct tax were imposed. In one respect, the establishment of a common measure for representation and taxation will have a very salutary effect. As the accuracy of the census to be obtained by the Congress will necessarily depend, in a considerable degree, on the disposition, if not on the co-operation of the States, it is of great importance that the States should feel as little bias as possible to swell or to reduce the amount of their numbers. Were their share of representation alone to be governed by this rule, they would have an interest in exaggerating their inhabitants. Were the rule to decide their share of taxation alone, a contrary temptation would prevail. By extending the rule to both objects, the States will have opposite interests which will control and balance each other and produce the requisite impartiality.

“…And to preserve their independence, we must not let our rulers load us with perpetual debt. We must make our election between economy and liberty or profusion and servitude. If we run into such debts as that we must be taxed in our meat and in our drink, in our necessaries and our comforts, in our labors and our amusements, for our callings and our creeds, as the people of England are, our people, like them, must come to labor sixteen hours in the twenty-four, and give the earnings of fifteen of these to the government for their debts and daily expenses; and the sixteenth being insufficient to afford us bread, we must live, as they now do, on oatmeal and potatoes; have not time to think, no means of calling the mismanager’s to account; but be glad to obtain subsistence by hiring ourselves to rivet their chains on the necks of our fellow sufferers…” (Thomas Jefferson) THE MAKING OF AMERICA, p. 395

Taxation by representation of the voting Class is the Franchise, whose membership excluded all Persons not afforded such a Privilege, thus a Right to exercise the Electoral power itself. These men were not setting up a general democracy, but a Republic of Peerage with themselves at the top of the political pecking Order, or there was no need for Rules of Voting period. If every man and woman, regardless of any other factor of race etc, was being given the same equal Rights, the right itself from such a perspective is diminished in importance. No exclusions results in absolute equality for the purpose of voting, thus deciding who fills the Seats of Office. This general form of democracy was the very thing they were preventing. The crux of the problem was that slavery once institutionalized, co-mingled the Law with the general economy. The adversarial quality of the social results served to antagonize political considerations which otherwise were preserved in moral-balance.

Slavery also encouraged an economic fallacy to persist in regards to wage time-values. A slave that has no labor-hour-wage requires no money in payment, thereby lowering the money time-value of such labors. This is the true source of the zero cost basis gambit. A free man, doing the same labors as a slave, suffers a diminished wage, thus, he is regarded as no better then a slave. The labor class cannot gain a higher time-value, as measured by the Wage earned, so long as a slave does the same work without wages. Economic servitude allowed great fortunes to be realized with total moral indifference to the injustices rendered. The northern elite treated their wage-slaves with significant rigidity of Class status. The country did not practice equality, or pretend such moral equated values even existed.

A few examples of the time period:

{“Dred Scott’s case is constantly cited as a judicial affirmation doctrine that any one who is held as a slave in a State may be carried to any territory of the United States and held there as a slave… in the Message December 1859 congratulated Congress on settlement by the Supreme Court of the United States of the question of slavery in the Territories The right has been established of to take his property of any kind including slaves into the common territories belonging etc See also in note to Vol I p 559 extract from Message 1857 In that case it was admitted that if the plaintiff was slave such in virtue of the local law of Louisiana Territory operating because UN-repealed by the Act of 1820.

Laws of Arkansas–1850 51 p 88 and 1854 p 94 are acts amending Rev St c 153 on the apprehension and sale of runaway slaves 1850 Nov 22 An act to prohibit the publication circulation or promulgation of the abolition doctrines Ann L p 22 Sec 1 That if a free person by speaking or writing maintain that owners have not a right of property in their slaves he shall be confined in jail not more than one year and fined not exceeding one hundred dollars 2 That if any free person write print or cause to be written or printed any book or other writing with intent to advise or incite Negroes in this State to rebel or make insurrection or inculcating resistance to the right of property of masters in their slaves or if he shall with intent to aid the purpose of any such book or writing knowingly circulate the same he shall be confined in the penitentiary not less than one nor more than five years Rev St pp 344 345

Laws of Indiana 1851 Art II sec 2 Limits the right of voting to white male citizens of the United States. No negro or mulatto shall have the right of suffrage Art XII sec 1 The militia shall consist of all able bodied white male persons between… Art XIII sec 1 No negro or mulatto shall come into or settle in the State after the adoption of this Constitution 2 All contracts made with any negro or mulatto coming into the State contrary to the foregoing section shall be void and any person who shall employ such negro or mulatto or encourage him to remain in the State shall be fined not less than ten nor more than five hundred dollars 3 All fines which may be collected for a violation of the provisions of this article or of any law hereafter passed for the purpose of carrying the same into execution shall be set apart and appropriated for the colonization of such Negroes and mulattoes and their descendants as may be in the State at the adoption of this Constitution and may be willing to emigrate 4 The general assembly shall pass laws to carry out the provisions of this article. }

Only Free White Men with Property Can Vote— There is no right to vote in the United States Constitution, so each state’s standards have evolved separately unless federal laws were passed that applied to every state. When this country was founded, only white men with property were routinely permitted to vote (although freed African Americans could vote in four states). White working men(wage-slaves), almost all women, and all other people of color were denied the franchise.HTTP:// /recount/history/

Allowing slavery was not just a trifle error of conscience. The allowance was deliberate and well thought out. The motivation of gaining wealth carried the political choice on the back of Civil law and was National policy by enforcement of Due Process of inherent Property Rights. Slaves were owned and sold just like land and beer, thus how they were counted was a politically motivated distinction of superior Rights. Just because a State did not favor slavery did not mean Blacks were allowed in that State, for any reason. Some States, after the civil war, recognized if Blacks already ‘resided’ in their State they were free, but that did not mean they had Suffrage i. e. the political franchise. To ignore this historical quality of fact is to ignore the Defect itself and its consequences.

The declarations of sovereign rights were not equally extended politically to any class other then those who held the Franchise Rights. Themselves, tightly connected to land ownership. Only in the light of these truths can the deeper consequences of such political, or civil castes, as practiced, be taken into account in order to explain why there is such a confusion of citizens, persons, individuals and inhabitants classified in such absurd relationships to civil obligations. People were not treated equally, nor afforded the same qualities of liberty, or privileges, especially in regards to allodial land property ownership. This cognitive fact of allodial land ownership is disturbingly absent from why such a Direct tax even existed at all. The States were sovereign Nations and thus had to have allodial Titles to their own lands, or the Law is an obtuse, bold-faced lie.

Those who owned large amounts of land had significant political weight, as opposed to those who had less, or none, and those who had no right to own anything at all. Ownership of property was a measure of not just property wealth, but of political power as well. To constrain the political power of Direct taxes, a relationship was balanced, and thus bound, to the equal measure of the political power derived from land ownership. This is a Tension Function as well. The reason for this political equation is simple: Those who have more to lose, have more to gain, by defending the political power as given. These men were defending their absolute rights of land ownership; all things which flowed from said ownership and thus, had much more to lose if the land was swept out from under their feet. Having gained great wealth from the lands they conquered they were not about to give up what they had liberated unto themselves. Or they would have had another revolution, of ‘non-owning-land’ free persons, demanding the very same for themselves. This is the crux of which obligations turn and direct taxes imposed.

Jefferson was opposed to all forms of tyranny. He also had great faith in the ability to rule by reason. Therefore, in helping to make laws for Virginia, his guiding principle was to place as few restrictions as possible upon the people of the state. Jefferson was a strong advocate of land reform. A few families owned most of the land in Virginia and, because ownership of land was a prerequisite for voting, these same families also controlled the government. By his efforts the old hereditary property laws were modified to enable more people to own land, which led to greater democracy in the state.

At Monticello, Jefferson secretly drafted what were to be called the Kentucky Resolutions, in which he declared that the federal government was not “the exclusive or final judge of the extent of the powers delegated to itself.” On the contrary, Congress was merely a creation of the states and was subject to the “final judgment” of the states. He concluded that “whensoever the general government assumes undelegated powers, its acts are unauthoritative, void, and of no force.”

Here was the first statement of the doctrine of nullification. Jefferson’s primary purpose was to defend human rights and civil liberties, which he believed were violated by the Alien and Sedition Acts. The Kentucky legislature adopted the Kentucky Resolutions, and similar resolutions were passed in Virginia. They were not acted upon, the Alien and Sedition Acts expired In 1801, and the furor died away. Later, however, the nullification doctrine was used by supporters of states’ rights to deny what the Federalists thought the Constitution had settled: that the federal government was the primary government of the land. Opponents of nullification argued that it would break up the federal Union. Southern politicians invoked nullification in their 19th-century rivalry with the Northern states, an antagonism that finally reached its climax in the American Civil War (1861-1865).

The 16th amendment, contrary to most assertions, actually destroyed the political constraints, which blocked exterior operations upon congress. By taking two balanced powers, and divorcing them from the inherent principle, from which both were derived, an exterior demand neither power allowed was now capable of acting on both with impunity. The bank was not a political citizen. The political Franchise of Voting powers was not exactly fair, but it did control how such powers were to be recognized and who could employ such powers.

If congress was trying to do away with a limitation, or a restriction upon itself, it must be obvious what the limitation is and in this specific case why. Why is a census a limitation to taxing a mans labors? The justification of removing the limitation does not support the action itself. What kind of quantifiable measure is being defined at all by removing apportionment and the requirement of the census?

The 16th amendment could have said, ‘to lay and collect Direct taxes without the need to count shoes and measure the length of a top-coat’ and made just as much sense. The wealthy have the means to bend a congressman’s ear much more so then a wage laborer ever will.

The political component of the Direct taxing power was never addressed for what it really is by practice: another form of exclusion. By excluding direct taxes from operating on personal income it helped to balance the political powers enumerated to Congress, by denying one class of people from using another class, as a source of political corruption itself.

Giving a government the abusive taxing power is to open a big door for lobbyists, political cronies by any name, to bribe the very men who are making laws, to be more beneficial to the donors, than everyone else. Soon laws are passed just to benefit one class over another with favored corporations, especially of military productions, or banking syndicates receiving tremendous quantities of money, that Congress has never actually paid for honestly. The whole system is stupendously corrupted right to its rotten core, but hey so long as the rich get richer why limit the gravy train itself to just the spoiled few.

It is still more revolting,”said Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr., “if the grounds upon which [a rule] was laid down have vanished long since, and the rule simply persists from blind imitation of the past.” 116 This rule is like a vampire, impossible to kill. One ordinarily assumes that provisions of our Constitution represent fundamental values, or at least specify the structure within which policy or political disputes are to be resolved. Constitutional values ordinarily are entitled to weight, even when they conflict with other values. Constitutional values commonly reflect the “equal basic rights and liberties of citizenship that legislative majorities are to respect.”117

The history of the apportionment requirement, however, leaves the requirement without a fundamental value or surviving structure to give it meaning. Apportionment of direct tax is in the Constitution as part of the compromise by which the slave states received extra votes in the House of Representatives; but today there is no constitutional weight or value in giving slave states votes because slave states no longer exist.

If Congress elected to make a requisition upon the states, the apportionment formula in Article I would be binding, but it is difficult to see any remaining weight to an agreement to have fair requisitions in the absence of any requisitions. Giving apportionment its due weight in constitutional discourse would be to give the requirement no weight.114 See, e.g., Gabinet & Coffey, supra note 9 (shareholders may not be taxed on undistributed corporate earnings constitutionally); John Nolan, supra note 9 (prepaid receipts may not be taxed constitutionally); Henry Ordower, supra note 9 (unrealized appreciation may not be taxed constitutionally).115 See Jensen, supra note 28, at 2338.116 Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr., The Path of the Law, 10 HARV. L. REV. 457, 469 (1897).117 JOHN RAWLS, POLITICAL LIBERALISM 227 (1993).

Mr. Holmes Jr., failed to realize the deeper reasoning behind the balance of apportionment. He never asked what if slavery had never existed and if so, what change in the Direct taxing clause would have resulted?

The tax was on the States, where incomes measured the wealth which came from the lands held. Slaves were [two] forms of wealth acting in unity for the slave-owners. The compromise was due to the inherent fallacy a slave was inferior to the owner even as the slave created tangible wealth the owner never by his own labors produced. Without the slaves how much wealth creation was actually possible?

States which allowed slavery to produce wealth for private enrichment wanted the advantages without the responsibility or natural expenses non-slaves States had to endure. Lost in the argument is the more salient fact the Direct tax was a seriously flawed doctrine whose defective roots went right back to the federal governments fiscal disparities. Taxes are contrary to actual freedom and therefore, all taxation must be strictly controlled and enforced on the government against its WILL not the Peoples. Without slavery this restriction upon the States and federal governments would have been more specific as in— no Direct tax can be assessed on the States unless Congress has met the qualifications prior to the Census. Congress, has no authority to take any money from any State whose sovereign power of consent cannot be diluted by federal political fiat.

The enumerated “power” of Congress to call for a direct tax was intentionally balanced by the political constraints afforded to those taxed. Also lost in the shuffle of time is the fact Senators were once elected from within their respective State legislative Houses. The Senate had to answer back to their respective Houses and thus, to those who elected them. The States, received the Direct tax from the federal and then proceeded to decide how said tax was to be collected. The federal government had no say or any authority to impose or direct said collections for any reason.

Congress had no authority then or now to change the constitution from which it derives its powers. Taxation by representation was therefore destroyed and replaced with an ‘implied’ power never given or contemplated. This destruction of political balance was deliberate and meant to cause great harm to the American people. The 16th amendment destroyed the intent of the Constitutional balance [Tension] between the power to tax and the power to Elect. Banks are not elected nor are they electors and they do not answer to the People for wrongs assailed. A foreign bank is even less accountable by any stretch of reason. An absurdity also resulted due to the insertion of Incomes and Source where neither belonged for any reason proper to their economic purpose. The 16th amendment was and still is a political knife in the back of the Constitution itself, thus its People. While slavery, was indeed the deeper defect, even when removed, this did not change the political constraint, bound upon direct Capitation taxes. Removing slavery from the equation simply left land as the sole object of the Direct tax.

Congress has no inherent, direct authority over Union states, thus a political door had to be opened, then closed. A courtesy from one sovereign to another. Since war was an expensive under-taking, it also stands to reason that a restriction of political powers, in regards to war, was balanced with the opposing power to allow a tax only when needed. Apportionment coupled with the Census was the method to ensure fairness and thus to do no harm, so long as the election powers were still in congruent balance. This wasn’t exactly a great system, but by changing the rules a greater moral hazard was allowed to gain control of the money powers themselves.

The election process needed to change on the State level not the federal, or the federal is controlling its own elections, as if the States no longer matter. This is also why Senators were elected directly from the State senates, to hold them directly accountable as power went from the People to their representatives and then to the federal level. Public officials were public servants by the constitutional Republican form of government. A central bank did not stand between them, dictating terms of money over law. The role of the federal government was never contemplated as a tyrant on behalf of the Lending class to squeeze every living person in America for money. If it was then it was by disingenuous means which do not legitimize the evil, or the methods of extortion, or extraction upon the people. Fraud has no defense of the Law and it matters not who Speaks such frauds or labels them true.

A person has no responsibility to make contributions to government in the form of taxes if government has no right to them. Gregory v Helvering, 293 US 465 (1934). And again, “(an individual) is entitled to carry on his private business in his own way. His power to contract is unlimited. He owes no duty to the state or to his neighbors to divulge his business…” Hale v Henkel, 201 US 43, 74 (1906). Payment of taxes allegedly owed to the government under threat of prosecution when no tax is properly due is to submit to a form of extortion under color of law.

The court noted: “It will thus be seen that whenever the government has imposed a tax which it recognized as a DIRECT TAX, it has never been applied to any objects but real estate or slaves.”

The very purpose of a Bill of Rights was to withdraw certain subjects from the vicissitudes of political controversy, to place them beyond the reach of majorities and officials and to establish them as legal principles to be applied by the courts. One’s right to life, liberty, and property, to free speech, a free press, freedom of worship and assembly, and other fundamental rights may not be submitted to vote; they depend on the outcome of no elections.” West Virginia Bd. of Ed. v Barnett, 319 US 624, 638 (1943).”

Each of these Court cases demonstrates the Principles of which specific rights of labor property are unalienable, untouchable by any tax law. These unalienable, or absolute property rights, are not defeat-able by simply Voting them out of existence, for no such vote is constitutional. The Law cannot be repealed just to favor a lending tyranny by such destruction of Vested Rights. The fundamental Rights, eventually had to be extended to all classes of people, regardless of race, or origination, in order to repeal the original defect, or there is nothing left, but political dust across the floor. When the People have no power neither does the government, which is their Institution, as it cannot belong to any other than those whose blood was shed for its establishment. Men in power never quite grasp this fact, as they always assume they can simply dictate away to some corner, the differences of political destitution, with the wave of a military hand. And when they do realize how wrong they are it is usually to late to correct their defective thinking.

The only reason the 16th amendment has survived till now is that it is protected like a dead skunk in a bank vault. As for the actual political taxing power think of it like this: Each hand holds the balance of power. One hand gives the Consent the other receives said consent. As each hand holds the political power each has a standing in its balance. To cancel the constraint is to destroy the power itself. The 16th amendment snipped this constraint and Congress, actually lost the very power as it is now asserted. The usurpation of the constraint destroyed the measure of its application, thus apportionment was defeated at the cost of the power itself. Naturally, the fools who destroyed these balances of power never contemplated the absurdity of its result: a Capitation tax without apportionment is absolutely anti-constitutional, because it destroyed the Balance of Taxation by Representation and severed the power to tax incomes from land productivity altogether, as there is no other source for such a tax to be laid. Oh the irony. In order to appease the Tyrants of the Lending class the people had to become perpetual debt slaves. Only to make that happen the lawful money had to vanish and be replaced with a thing called debt as money, with no virtues as money.

The restrictions imposed on Congress, by the Constitution are Vested, therefore, the non-apportioned, non-Census controlled, mass Capitation individual incomes-tax is absolutely UN-Constitutional. Only in anti-America is tyranny by taxation called Democracy.

The voting franchise was the source of the Elector power as directed to Congress, who in turn, when emergencies arose(legitimate) had the equal reciprocation of said power to Direct a tax upon the Union States. This was the Constitutional Law and it was only as fair as it was ratified. The gross absurdity of never questioning the ‘fallacy’ locked into the very wording of the 16th amendment, has resulted in a malformation of epic proportions and evil intent. Evil because it demands something Congress had no authority to take, or legislate into subjective, adversarial jurisdiction.

What is hiding behind this assertion does seems to be the Kings Admiralty jurisdiction coming across the land to defeat property rights with little or no restrictions; thereby destroying any claim of sovereignty itself, both of States and their respective citizens upon the land. Why is there no allodial title in land ownership today for typical Americans? The King simply never granted them? So just like that the King defeated the People where they stood upon the land, with nothing more then an ink pen, on a contract of inferior real estate?

Or was this an even more odious result of not using gold coin for lawful money, thus unavailable for purchasing land thus becoming forever free from direct property taxation by the States? If people purchased their land in gold and thus obtained allodial Title, or the lawful equivalent, the law of sovereign property Rights is substantially stronger, then otherwise assumed. The Rights of private Individuals to earn money or to produce private wealth thus becomes unassailable by defective Congressional demands, or from the predations of the Lending class who are always looking for more taxpayers to pay their never-ending demand of profit from debt.

Back to page – 3

Back to page – 2

Back to page – 1


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: