Time: Thu Dec 04 04:44:22 1997 To: From: Paul Andrew Mitchell [address in tool bar] Subject: SLS: America's subjection to Britain, in a nut shell - includes new information (fwd) Cc: Bcc: sls References: <snip> > >AMERICA'S SUBJECTION TO BRITAIN, IN A NUTSHELL > > > The below Compilation of facts were taken from my research >papers and excerpts of my email responses to others. I am trying >to cut down on the size of the information and my commentary, to >let the facts speak for themselves. I am using old email since >the facts remain the same, along with questions possessed to me. > > To help in researching the below facts I have broken them >into differnt topics. You can do a text search of the following >topics, or do a word search, using your word processor. > >1. WHEN CONTRACTS OVERRULE DECLARED RIGHTS. >2. ARE OUR PERCEPTIONS CORRECT OF OUR HISTORY AND FORE FATHERS? >3. FACTS OF THE KINGS MIND SET CONCERNING HIS CHARTERS. >4. WHERE THE PRESENT DAY TAXES COME FROM. >5. THE FEDERAL RESERVE SISTER OF THE EXCHEQUER. >6. THE KING RULES BY VAGUE STATUTES. >7. LAW OF MORTMAIN. >8. THE 1787 CONSTITUTION WAS ABROGATED BY THE 14TH AMENDMENT. > > >1. WHEN CONTRACTS OVERRULE DECLARED RIGHTS. > > "The reason I guess no one has looked at the issue of the >U.S. still being subject to Britain except for the Informer and >myself up until now, can only be, as a rule no one looks beyond >what is a settled fact/belief or foregone conclusion. In other >words Independence from Britain was as settled in the minds of >Americans as God Almighty sitting on the throne and His Son >seated at His Right Hand." (quote from my email response) > > >THE PARIS PEACE TREATY (PEACE TREATY of 1783): > > "In the name of the most holy and undivided Trinity. > > It having pleased the Divine Providence to dispose the >hearts of the most serene and most potent Prince George the >Third, by the grace of God, KING OF GREAT BRITAIN, FRANCE, AND >IRELAND, defender of the faith, duke of Brunswick and Lunebourg, >arch-treasurer and PRINCE ELECTOR OF THE HOLY ROMAN EMPIRE ETC., >and OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, to FORGET all past >MISUNDERSTANDINGS AND DIFFERENCES that have unhappily interrupted >the good correspondence and friendship which they mutually wish >to RESTORE,...." > >"YIELDlNG AND PAYING yearly, to us, our heirs and Successors, for >the same, the yearly Rent of Twenty Marks of Lawful money of >England, at the Feast of All Saints, yearly, forever, The First >payment thereof to begin and be made on the Feast of All Saints >which shall be in the year of Our Lord One thousand six hundred >Sixty and five; AND also, the fourth part of all Gold and Silver >Ore which, with the limits aforesaid, shall, from time to time, >happen to be found." >(Feast of All Saints occurred November 1 of each year.) The >Carolina Charter > > The following quote is from section 25 of the 1776 North >Carolina Constitution, Declaration of Rights. Remember this when >you read the 1689 Declaration of Rights, third section, >(contained in this paper). > >"And provided further, that nothing herein contained shall affect >the titles or possessions of individuals holding or claiming >under the laws heretofore in force, or grants heretofore made by >the late King George II, or his predecessors, or the late lords >proprietors, or any of them." > >"But this State had no title to the territory prior to the title >of the King of Great Britain and his subjects, nor did it ever >claim as lord paramount to them. This State was not the original >grantor to them, nor did they ever hold by any kind of tenure >under the State, or owe it any allegiance or other duties to >which an escheat is annexed. How then can it be said that the >lands in this case naturally result back by a kind of reversion >to this State, to a source from whence it never issued, and from >tenants who never held under it?" >MARSHALL v. LOVELESS, 1 N.C. 412 (1801), 2 S.A. 70 > > "SAVING always, the Faith, Allegiance, and Sovereign Dominion >due to us, our heirs and Successors, for the same; and Saving >also, the right, title, and interest of all and every our >Subjects of the English Nation which are now Planted within the >Limits bounds aforesaid, if any be;..." The Carolina Charter, >1663 > > "KNOW YE, that We, of our further grace, certain knowledge, and >mere motion, HAVE thought fit to Erect the same Tract of Ground, >Country, and Island into a Province, and, out of the fullness of >our Royal power and Prerogative, WE Do, for us, our heirs and >Successors, Erect, Incorporate, and Ordain the same into a >province, and do call it the Province of CAROLINA, and so from >henceforth will have it called..." The Carolina Charter, 1663 > > "Headnote 5. Besides, the treaty of 1783 was declared by an >Act of Assembly of this State passed in 1787, to be law in this >State, and this State by adopting the Constitution of the United >States in 1789, declared the treaty to be the supreme law of the >land. The treaty now under consideration was made, on the part >of the United States, by a Congress composed of deputies from >each state, to whom were delegated by the articles of >confederation, expressly, "the sole and exclusive right and power >of entering into treaties and alliances"; and being ratified and >made by them, it became a complete national act, and the act and >law of every state. > If, however, a subsequent sanction of this State was at all >necessary to make the treaty law here, it has been had and >repeated. By a statute passed in 1787, the treaty was declared to >be law in this State, and the courts of law and equity were >enjoined to govern their decisions accordingly. And in 1789 was >adopted here the present Constitution of the United States, which >declared that all treaties made, or which should be made under >the authority of the United States, should be the supreme law of >the land; and that the judges in every state should be bound >thereby; anything in the Constitution or laws of any state to the >contrary not withstanding. Surely, then, the treaty is now law >in this State, and the confiscation act, so far as the treaty >interferes with it, is annulled." > "By an act of the Legislature of North Carolina, passed in >April, 1777, it was, among other things, enacted, "That all >persons, being subjects of this State, and now living therein, or >who shall hereafter come to live therein, who have traded >immediately to Great Britain or Ireland, within ten years last >past, in their own right, or acted as factors, storekeepers, or >agents here, or in any of the United States of America, for >merchants residing in Great Britain or Ireland, shall take an >oath of abjuration and allegiance, or depart out of the State." >Treaties are the "Law of the Land" HAMILTON v. EATEN, 1 N.C. 641 >(1796), HAMILTON v. EATEN. Ä 2 Mart., 1. U.S. Circuit Court. >(June Term, 1796.) > > "The two main issues as I see them in British Colony are; >one, the financial obligations of the 1213 Charter En #1, are >still in effect, along with the Charters establishing America. >Two, the last sentence of the 1689 Bill of Rights En #2, proves >the following:" > "That the Charters of the Colonies could never be overturned >by a Declaration of Independence, or the 1787 treaty, otherwise >known as the Constitution, I'm talking about the real subject >matter, financial obligation. Title for the land was transferred >to the states and then ceded by Charter to the federal government >under Cestui que trust, but the contracted debt and obligation of >the Colonial Charters, and the 1213 Charter could not be negated. >Rights could be granted to the citizens, subjects or combatants, >which ever the case may be, but the financial obligation cannot, >nor could not be affected, because it involves parties not yet >born. This why King Charles I said, the 1689 Bill of Rights >would not free the kingdom from the obligation of the 1213 >Charter. This is why the United States Bank was given right of >Charter in America. George Washington had no choice but to >succumb to the Rothchilds point man, Hamilton. Talk about deja >vu, I mean does this not sound familiar. Our Bill of Rights was >given to us, to give us the illusion of freedom. When the tax >obligation of the Charters above marched along un-impeded and >un-seen, by Americans and Britons alike. Read the Magna Carta >again, they wanted the Pope's blessing for the 1215 Charter, this >same Pope is the Pope in the 1213 Charter where England and >Ireland were given to him. He could not just give back his land, >because of other parties not yet born. The Pope let the barons >presume they were free and gave his blessing to the 1215 Magna >Carta, knowing to do so would in no way lawfully overturn the >grant made to him in the 1213 Charter. Also, it is apparent, it >was recognized as law that you could not even create a Charter, >wherein you declared a previous grant or Charter null in void >unless the relevant parties agreed. How can a Charter be made >void if parties to the Charter will never cease to be born, an >heir can always be found. To prove this, again what did the new >king Charles I do, even though the previous monarchy had come to >an end, its obligations did not, this is why he had to included >paragraph III, a clause to protect the other parties of an >earlier Charter." (The U.S. Is Still A British Colony, part III) > >Endnote #1 > >Britannia: Sources of British History (1213) >KING JOHN's Concession of England and Ireland to the Pope > >In the matter of the election and installation of Stephen Langton >as Archbishop of Canterbury, King John, in the words of Pope >Innocent III, had by "impious persecution", tried to "enslave" >the entire English Church. As a result, the pope laid on England >an interdict (1208-14), a sort of religious "strike", wherein no >religious service be performed for anyone, guilty or innocent. >When this didn't work, the king, himself, was excommunicated. >Caving-in under that pressure, John wrote a letter of concession >to the pope, hoping to have the interdict and the excommunication >lifted (1213). John's concession which, in effect, made England a >fiefdom of Rome, worked like a charm. The satisfied pope lifted >lifted the yoke he had hung on the people of England and their >king. > >John, by the grace of God, king of England, lord of Ireland, duke >of Normandy and Aquitaine, count of Anjou, to all the faithful of >Christ who shall look upon this present charter, greeting. > >We wish it to be known to all of you, through this our charter, >furnished with our seal, that inasmuch as we had offended in many >ways God and our mother the holy church, and in consequence are >known to have very much needed the divine mercy, and can not >offer anything worthy for making due satisfaction to God and to >the church unless we humiliate ourselves and our kingdoms: we, >wishing to humiliate ourselves for Him who humiliated Himself for >us unto death, the grace of the Holy Spirit inspiring, not >induced by force or compelled by fear, but of our own good and >spontaneous will and by the common counsel of our barons, do >offer and freely concede to God and His holy apostles Peter and >Paul and to our mother the holy Roman church, and to our lord >pope Innocent and to his Catholic successors, the whole kingdom >of England and the whole kingdom Ireland, with all their rights >and appurtenances, for the remission of our own sins and of those >of our whole race as well for the living as for the dead; and now >receiving and holding them, as it were a vassal, from God and the >Roman church, in the presence of that prudent man Pandulph, >subdeacon and of the household of the lord pope, we perform and >swear fealty for them to him our aforesaid lord pope Innocent, >and his catholic successors and the Roman church, according to >the form appended; and in the presence of the lord pope, if we >shall be able to come before him, we shall do liege homage to >him; binding our successors aid our heirs by our wife forever, in >similar manner to perform fealty and show homage to him who shall >be chief pontiff at that time, and to the Roman church without >demur. As a sign, moreover, of this our own, we will and >establish perpetual obligation and concession we will establish >that from the proper and especial revenues of our aforesaid >kingdoms, for all the service and customs which we ought to >render for them, saving in all things the penny of St. Peter, the >Roman church shall receive yearly a thousand marks sterling, >namely at the feast of St. Michael five hundred marks, and at >Easter five hundred marks, seven hundred, namely, for the kingdom >of England, and three hundred for the kingdom of Ireland, saving >to us and to our heirs our rights, liberties and regalia; all of >which things, as they have been described above, we wish to have >perpetually valid and firm; and we bind ourselves and our >successors not to act counter to them. And if we or any one of >our successors shall presume to attempt this, whoever he be, >unless being duly warned he come to his kingdom, and this senses, >be shall lose his right to the kingdom, and this charter of our >obligation and concession shall always remain firm. > > >Endnote #2 > > > >Britannia: Sources of British History >BILL of RIGHTS, 1689 > >An Act Declaring the Rights and Liberties of the Subject and >Settling the Succession of the Crown > > Whereas the Lords Spiritual and Temporal and Commons >assembled at Westminster, lawfully, fully and freely representing >all the estates of the people of this realm, did upon the >thirteenth day of February in the year of our Lord one thousand >six hundred eighty-eight [old style date] present unto their >Majesties, then called and known by the names and style of >William and Mary, prince and princess of Orange, being present in >their proper persons, a certain declaration in writing made by >the said Lords and Commons in the words following, > > Whereas the late King James the Second, by the assistance of >divers evil counsellors, judges and ministers employed by him, >did endeavour to subvert and extirpate the Protestant religion >and the laws and liberties of this kingdom; > >By assuming and exercising a power of dispensing with and >suspending of laws and the execution of laws without consent of >Parliament; > >By committing and prosecuting divers worthy prelates for humbly >petitioning to be excused from concurring to the said assumed >power; > >By issuing and causing to be executed a commission under the >great seal for erecting a court called the Court of Commissioners >for Ecclesiastical Causes; > >By levying money for and to the use of the Crown by pretence of >prerogative for other time and in other manner than the same was >granted by Parliament; > >By raising and keeping a standing army within this kingdom in >time of peace without consent of Parliament, and quartering >soldiers contrary to law; > >By causing several good subjects being Protestants to be disarmed >at the same time when papists were both armed and employed >contrary to law; > >By violating the freedom of election of members to serve in >Parliament; > >By prosecutions in the Court of King's Bench for matters and > >causes cognizable only in Parliament, and by divers other >arbitrary and illegal courses; > >And whereas of late years partial corrupt and unqualified persons >have been returned and served on juries in trials, and >particularly divers jurors in trials for high treason which were >not freeholders; > >And excessive bail hath been required of persons committed in >criminal cases to elude the benefit of the laws made for the >liberty of the subjects; > >And excessive fines have been imposed; And illegal and cruel >punishments inflicted; And several grants and promises made of >fines and forfeitures before any conviction or judgment against >the persons upon whom the same were to be levied; > > All which are utterly and directly contrary to the known >laws and statutes and freedom of this realm; > > And whereas the said late King James the Second having >abdicated the government and the throne being thereby vacant, his >Highness the prince of Orange (whom it hath pleased Almighty God >to make the glorious instrument of delivering this kingdom from >popery and arbitrary power) did (by the advice of the Lords >Spiritual and Temporal and divers principal persons of the >Commons) cause letters to be written to the Lords Spiritual and >Temporal being Protestants, and other letters to the several >counties, cities, universities, boroughs and cinque ports, for >the choosing of such persons to represent them as were of right >to be sent to Parliament, to meet and sit at Westminster upon the >two and twentieth day of January in this year one thousand six >hundred eighty and eight, in order to such an establishment as >that their religion, laws and liberties might not again be in >danger of being subverted, upon which letters elections having >been accordingly made; > > And thereupon the said Lords Spiritual and Temporal and >Commons, pursuant to their respective letters and elections, >being now assembled in a full and free representative of this >nation, taking into their most serious consideration the best >means for attaining the ends aforesaid, do in the first place (as >their ancestors in like case have usually done) for the >vindicating and asserting their ancient rights and liberties >declare: > >That the pretended power of suspending the laws or the execution >of laws by regal authority without consent of Parliament is >illegal; > >That the pretended power of dispensing with laws or the execution >of laws by regal authority, as it hath been assumed and exercised >of late, is illegal; > >That the commission for erecting the late Court of Commissioners >for Ecclesiastical Causes, and all other commissions and courts >of like nature, are illegal and pernicious; > >That levying money for or to the use of the Crown by pretence of >prerogative, without grant of Parliament, for longer time, or in >other manner than the same is or shall be granted, is illegal; > >That it is the right of the subjects to petition the king, and >all commitments and prosecutions for such petitioning are >illegal; > >That the raising or keeping a standing army within the kingdom in >time of peace, unless it be with consent of Parliament, is >against law; > >That the subjects which are Protestants may have arms for their >defence suitable to their conditions and as allowed by law; > >That election of members of Parliament ought to be free; > >That the freedom of speech and debates or proceedings in >Parliament ought not to be impeached or questioned in any court >or place out of Parliament; > >That excessive bail ought not to be required, nor excessive fines >imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted; > >That jurors ought to be duly impanelled and returned, and jurors >which pass upon men in trials for high treason ought to be >freeholders; > >That all grants and promises of fines and forfeitures of >particular persons before conviction are illegal and void; > > And that for redress of all grievances, and for the >amending, strengthening and preserving of the laws, Parliaments >ought to be held frequently. > > And they do claim, demand and insist upon all and singular >the premises as their undoubted rights and liberties, and that no >declarations, judgments, doings or proceedings to the prejudice >of the people in any of the said premises ought in any wise to be >drawn hereafter into consequence or example; to which demand of >their rights they are particularly encouraged by the declaration >of his Highness the prince of Orange as being the only means for >obtaining a full redress and remedy therein. > > Having therefore an entire confidence that his said Highness >the prince of Orange will perfect the deliverance so far advanced >by him, and will still preserve them from the violation of their >rights which they have here asserted, and from all other attempts >upon their religion, rights and liberties, the said Lords >Spiritual and Temporal and Commons assembled at Westminster do >resolve that William and Mary, prince and princess of Orange, be >and be declared king and queen of England, France and Ireland and >the dominions thereunto belonging, to hold the crown and royal >dignity of the said kingdoms and dominions to them, the said >prince and princess, during their lives and the life of the >survivor to them, and that the sole and full exercise of the >regal power be only in and executed by the said prince of Orange >in the names of the said prince and princess during their joint >lives, and after their deceases the said crown and royal dignity >of the same kingdoms and dominions to be to the heirs of the body >of the said princess, and for default of such issue to the >Princess Anne of Denmark and the heirs of her body, and for >default of such issue to the heirs of the body of the said prince >of Orange. And the Lords Spiritual and Temporal and Commons do >pray the said prince and princess to accept the same accordingly. > > And that the oaths hereafter mentioned be taken by all >persons of whom the oaths have allegiance and supremacy might be >required by law, instead of them; and that the said oaths of >allegiance and supremacy be abrogated. > >I, A.B., do sincerely promise and swear that I will be faithful >and bear true allegiance to their Majesties King William and >Queen Mary. So help me God. > >I, A.B., do swear that I do from my heart abhor, detest and >abjure as impious and heretical this damnable doctrine and >position, that princes excommunicated or deprived by the Pope or >any authority of the see of Rome may be deposed or murdered by >their subjects or any other whatsoever. And I do declare that no >foreign prince, person, prelate, state or potentate hath or ought >to have any jurisdiction, power, superiority, pre-eminence or >authority, ecclesiastical or spiritual, within this realm. So >help me God. > >Upon which their said Majesties did accept the crown and royal >dignity of the kingdoms of England, France and Ireland, and the >dominions thereunto belonging, according to the resolution and >desire of the said Lords and Commons contained in the said >declaration. And thereupon their Majesties were pleased that the >said Lords Spiritual and Temporal and Commons, being the two >Houses of Parliament, should continue to sit, and with their >Majesties' royal concurrence make effectual provision for the >settlement of the religion, laws and liberties of this kingdom, >so that the same for the future might not be in danger again of >being subverted, to which the said Lords Spiritual and Temporal >and Commons did agree, and proceed to act accordingly. > > Now in pursuance of the premises the said Lords Spiritual >and Temporal and Commons in Parliament assembled, for the >ratifying, confirming and establishing the said declaration and >the articles, clauses, matters and things therein contained by >the force of law made in due form by authority of Parliament, do >pray that it may be declared and enacted that all and singular >the rights and liberties asserted and claimed in the said >declaration are the true, ancient and indubitable rights and >liberties of the people of this kingdom, and so shall be >esteemed, allowed, adjudged, deemed and taken to be; and that all >and every the particulars aforesaid shall be firmly and strictly >holden and observed as they are expressed in the said >declaration, and all officers and ministers whatsoever shall >serve their Majesties and their successors according to the same >in all time to come. > > And the said Lords Spiritual and Temporal and Commons, >seriously considering how it hath pleased Almighty God in his >marvellous providence and merciful goodness to this nation to >provide and preserve their said Majesties' royal persons most >happily to reign over us upon the throne of their ancestors, for >which they render unto him from the bottom of their hearts their >humblest thanks and praises, do truly, firmly, assuredly and in >the sincerity of their hearts think, and do hereby recognize, >acknowledge and declare, that King James the Second having >abdicated the government, and their Majesties having accepted the >crown and royal dignity as aforesaid, their said Majesties did >become, were, are and of right ought to be by the laws of this >realm our sovereign liege lord and lady, king and queen of >England, France and Ireland and the dominions thereunto >belonging, in and to whose princely persons the royal state, >crown and dignity of the said realms with all honours, styles, >titles, regalities, prerogatives, powers, jurisdictions and >authorities to the same belonging and appertaining are most >fully, rightfully and entirely invested and incorporated, united >and annexed. > > And for preventing all questions and divisions in this realm >by reason of any pretended titles to the crown, and for >preserving a certainty in the succession thereof, in and upon >which the unity, peace, tranquility and safety of this nation >doth under God wholly consist and depend, the said Lords >Spiritual and Temporal and Commons do beseech their Majesties >that it may be enacted, established and declared, that the crown >and regal government of the said kingdoms and dominions, with all >and singular the premises thereunto belonging and appertaining, >shall be and continue to their said Majesties and the survivor of >them during their lives and the life of the survivor of them, and >that the entire, perfect and full exercise of the regal power and >government be only in and executed by his Majesty in the names of >both their Majesties during their joint lives; and after their >deceases the said crown and premises shall be and remain to the >heirs of the body of her Majesty, and for default of such issue >to her Royal Highness the Princess Anne of Denmark and the heirs >of the body of his said Majesty; and thereunto the said Lords >Spiritual and Temporal and Commons do in the name of all the >people aforesaid most humbly and faithfully submit themselves, >their heirs and posterities for ever, and do faithfully promise >that they will stand to, maintain and defend their said >majesties, and also the limitation and succession of the crown >herein specified and contained, to the utmost of their powers >with their lives and estates against all persons whatsoever that >shall attempt anything to the contrary. > > And whereas it hath been found by experience that it is >inconsistent with the safety and welfare of this Protestant >kingdom to be governed by a popish prince, or by any king or >queen marrying a papist, the said Lords Spiritual and Temporal >and Commons do further pray that it may be enacted, that all and >every person and persons that is, are or shall be reconciled to >or shall hold communion with the see or Church of Rome, or shall >profess the popish religion, or shall marry a papist, shall be >excluded and be for ever incapable to inherit, possess or enjoy >the crown and government of this realm and Ireland and the >dominions thereunto belonging or any part of the same, or to >have, use or exercise any regal power, authority or jurisdiction >within the same; and in all and every such case or cases the >people of these realms shall be and are hereby absolved of their >allegiance; and the said crown and government shall from time to >time descend to and be enjoyed by such person or persons being >Protestants as should have inherited and enjoyed the same in case >the said person or persons so reconciled, holding communion or >professing or marrying as aforesaid were naturally dead; and that >every king and queen of this realm who at any time hereafter >shall come to and succeed in the imperial crown of this kingdom >shall on the first day of the meeting of the first Parliament >next after his or her coming to the crown, sitting in his or her >throne in the House of Peers in the presence of the Lords and >Commons therein assembled, or at his or her coronation before >such person or persons who shall administer the coronation oath >to him or her at the time of his or her taking the said oath >(which shall first happen), make, subscribe and audibly repeat >the declaration mentioned in the statute made in the thirtieth >year of the reign of King Charles the Second entitled, "An Act >for the more effectual preserving the king's person and >government by disabling papists from sitting in either House of >Parliament." > > But if it shall happen that such king or queen upon his or >her succession to the crown of this realm shall be under the age >of twelve years, then every such king or queen shall make, >subscribe and audibly repeat the same declaration at his or her >coronation or the first day of the meeting of the first >Parliament as aforesaid which shall first happen after such king >or queen shall have attained the said age of twelve years. All >which their Majesties are contented and pleased shall be >declared, enacted and established by authority of this present >Parliament, and shall stand, remain and be the law of this realm >for ever; and the same are by their said Majesties, by and with >the advice and consent of the Lords Spiritual and Temporal and >Commons in Parliament assembled and by the authority of the same, >declared, enacted and established accordingly. > >II. And be it further declared and enacted by the authority >aforesaid, that from and after this present session of Parliament >no dispensation by "non obstante" of or to any statute or any >part thereof shall be allowed, but that the same shall be held >void and of no effect, except a dispensation be allowed of in >such statute, and except in such cases as shall be specially >provided for by one or more bill or bills to be passed during >this present session of Parliament. > >III. Provided that no charter or grant or pardon granted before >the three and twentieth day of October in the year of our Lord >one thousand six hundred eighty-nine shall be any ways impeached >or invalidated by this Act, but that the same shall be and remain >of the same force and effect in law and no other than as if this >Act had never been made. > > >2. ARE OUR PERCEPTIONS CORRECT OF OUR HISTORY AND FORE FATHERS? > > > >"In May, 1775, Washington said: 'If you ever hear of me joining >in any such measure [as separation from Great Britain], you have >my leave to set me down for everything wicked'- He also said: 'It >is not wish or interest of the government [meaning >Massachusetts], or of any other upon this continent, separately >or collectively, to set up for independence'" Ingersoll, North >American Review, CLV. No.2, August, 1892, p. 183, also quote in >Sources of the Constitution of the United States, c. Ellis >Stevens, 1927, page 36. > >"Jay did not favor independence from Britain. His absence from >the signing of the Declaration of Independence was noted by >Thomas Jefferson." >Copyright c 1995 by LeftJustified Publiks. All rights reserved. > > "Mr. Chairman ... I rose yesterday to ask a question, which >arose in my own mind. When I asked the question. I thought the >meaning of my interrogation was obvious: The fate of this >question and America may depend on this: Have they said, we the >States? Have they made a proposal of a compact between States? >If they had, this would be a confederation: It is otherwise most >clearly a consolidated government. The question turns. Sir, on >that poor little thing--the expression, We the people, instead of >the States of America. I need not take much pains to show, that >the principles of this system, are extremely pernicious, >impolitic and dangerous. Is this a Monarchy, like England--a >compact between Prince and people; with checks on the former, to >secure the liberty of the latter? is this a Confederacy, like >Holland--an association of a number of independent States, each >of which retain its individual sovereignty?...." >Patrick Henry's speech of June 5, 1788 > >REMEMBER THIS PREDICTION OR PATRICK HENRY, WHEN YOU SEE WHAT >WASHINGTON DID BELOW AFTER CALLING OUT THE MILITIAS. > > "....My great objection to this Government is, that it does >not leave us the means of defending our rights: or, of waging war >against tyrants: It is urged by some Gentlemen, that this new >plan will bring us an acquisition of strength, an army, and the >militia of the States: This is an idea extremely ridiculous: >Gentlemen cannot be in earnest. This acquisition will trample on >your fallen liberty: Let my beloved Americans guard against that >fatal lethargy that has pervaded the universe: Have we the means >of resisting disciplined armies, when our only defence, the >militia is put into the hands of Congress?" >Patrick Henry's speech of June 5, 1788 > > "That Government is no more than a choice among evils, is >acknowledged by the most intelligent among mankind, and has been >a standing maxim for ages. If it be demonstrated that the >adoption of the new plan is a little or a trifling evil, then, >Sir, I acknowledge that adoption ought to follow: But, Sir, if >this be a truth that its adoption may entail misery on the free >people of this country. I then insist, that rejection ought to >follow. Gentlemen strongly urge its adoption will be a mighty >benefit to us: But, Sir, I am made of such incredulous materials >that assertions and declarations, do not satisfy me. I must be >convinced, Sir. I shall retain my infidelity on that subject, >till I see our liberties secured in a manner perfectly >satisfactory to my understanding....." >Patrick Henry's speech of June 7, 1788 > >"....Consider how the only remaining defence we have left is >destroyed in this manner; Besides the expences of maintaining the >Senate and other House in as much splendor as they please, there >is to be a great and mighty President, with very extensive >powers: the powers of a King: He is to be supported in >extravagant magnificence: So that the whole of our property may >be taken by this American Government, by laying what taxes they >please, giving themselves what salaries they please, and >suspending our laws at their pleasure: I might be thought too >inquisitive. > For I never will give up the power of direct taxation, but >for a scourge: But I beseech Gentlemen, at all hazards, not to >give up this unlimited power of taxation: >Patrick Henry's speech of June 7, 1788 > > In reading the Messages and Papers of the Presidents, vol I, >1789-1897 I discovered the following: >Gentlemen of the Senate: > > Pursuant to the powers vested in me by the act entitled "An >act repealing after the last day of June next the duties >heretofore laid upon distilled spirits imported from abroad and >laying others in their stead, and also upon spirits distilled >within the United States, and for appropriating the same," I have >thought fit to divide the United States into the following >districts, namely: > The district of New Hampshire, to consist of the State of >New Hampshire; the district of Massachusetts, to consist of the >State of Massachusetts; the district of Rhode Island and >Providence Plantations, to consist of the State of Rhode Island >and Providence Plantations; the district of Connecticut, to >consist of the State of Connecticut; the district of Vermont, to >consist of the State of Vermont; the district of New York, to >consist of the State of New York; the district of New Jersey, to >consist of the State of New Jersey; the district of Pennsylvania, >to consist of the State of Pennsylvania; the district of >Delaware, to consist of the State of Delaware; the district of >Maryland, to consist of the State of Maryland; the district of >Virginia, to consist of the State of Virginia; the district of >North Carolina, to consist of the State of North Carolina; the >district of South Carolina; and the district of Georgia, to >consist of the State of the State of Georgia."Page 99 March 4, >1791 > > In George Washington's Proclamation of March 30, 1791 he >declares the district of Columbia to be created and it's borders >established, he says further: > "And Congress by an amendatory act passed on the 3rd day of >the present month of March have given further authority to the >President of the United States...." > >THE FOLLOWING IS EMAIL THAT WENT WITH THE ABOVE QUOTE: > > This replaced the States in Union with the District States >in Union formally known as the States of ......This was also >necessary for the newly formed Bank of the United States, >February 25, 1791, to do business in the State of......, but is >actually the District State. Subjection of the States of..... >was complete, all that was necessary was for a permanent state of >war to exist, such as we have had since the Civil War, to invoke >statutory law over the enemy, requiring them to obey all license >requirements, because enemies have no rights in an occupied >territory. > Washington declared, under the War Powers, acting as >Commander-in-Chief, that the States of the Union were now >overlaid by District States, which as I think you know, removes >the States boundaries as a matter of sovereignty, violating the >Constitutional guarantee of a Republican form of government to >the States in Union, Article 4, sec. 4, which cannot take place >if delegated authority is taken under the War Powers, not ceded >by the Charter/Constitution. > The Constitution granted legislative authority to Congress >only over a ten square mile District, making Congress the supreme >authority, Article 1, sec. 1., sec. 8.18, over the District. >Washington extend this District without Constitutional authority. >Washington put in place officers of the District to oversee the >District States. As a result of the military rule imposed by >Washington, District courts and Appeals courts were ordered to >enforce collection and fines and imprisonment of anyone defying >the laws of the United States. THESE DISTRICTS CREATED BY GEORGE >WASHINGTON HAVE NEVER BEEN REMOVED. > The Judicial Districts were created by the Judiciary Act of >1789, two years before Washington said Congress gave him >additional powers, thereby HE created District States, so the >federal government could use the militias to crush the tax >protesters in Pennsylvania, by Washington's order. Since the >Judicial Districts already existed, why did they recreate them? >Washington said he was dividing the United States into District >States. He said DIVIDING THE STATES, listen, DIVIDING THE >STATES, not creating districts in the states, DIVIDING THE STATES >into DISTRICTS, changing them, or you would not DIVIDE THEM, >because the states were already divided. How can you DIVIDE, >SEPARATE the states, made by the state and federal >Charters/Constitutions? Why do this when Congress already had >the power to put down rebellion, Article I, section 8, U.S. >Constitution? This was an excuse to DIVIDE the states into >DISTRICTS, extending the jurisdiction of the District of >Columbia/Congress and delegating to the President, authority >given to Congress to suppress insurrection, under Art. I, sec. 8. > >Second, the use of any military power before Congress declares >war, by direction of the President is done by him as >Commander-in-Chief. Until Congress declares war they cannot stop >the President unless they impeach him, or when they declare war >they can stop the President with their power of the purse, unless >the President were to then declare a national emergency, as >Commander-in-Chief, overriding Congress, in effect declaring >himself king, or in our case anyone holding that office, which we >now have. I disagree with the un-Constitutional emergency powers >claimed by the President, but unless the Judiciary declares the >President out of line, you or I cannot change this, unless you or >I were elected President, and declared this power >un-Constitutional, but Congress would then impeach you or I to >protect public policy. Around and Around it goes. Again this >power comes from their operating under executive jurisdiction, >insular capacity, see DOWNES v. BIDWELL, 182 U.S. 244 (1901), >which was allowed by the Judiciary, beginning with what >Washington did. Because it was up to the Judiciary to declare >what Congress was doing as un-Constitutional, and up to >Washington to not take power delegated to Congress. This power >was affirmed by the Congressional Act of 1845, and in the >1850's by the insular cases. This created precedent for Congress >to continue to cede power to the President, delegated to them in >the Constitution. > >Third, the Districts Washington created answered directly to the >Commander-in-Chief, not Congress. In order for these Districts >to be created by the President, Congress had to give the >President power outside of the Constitution, as declared by >Washington himself. Martial law can be used as soon as the >military is called upon to put down insurrection or fight a war. >Washington created District States, not state districts, and the >military occupied the Pennsylvania District until the insurgents >went home, Washington said these Districts were created for >putting down the rebellion, however they were never disbanded >when the rebellion ended." END EMAIL > > >3. FACTS OF THE KINGS MIND SET CONCERNING HIS CHARTERS > > (Six weeks after) the capitulation of Yorktown, the king of >Great Britain, in his speech to Parliament (Nov. 27, 1781), >declared "That he should not answer the trust committed to the >sovereign of a free people, if he consented to sacrifice either >to his own desire of peace, or to their temporary ease and >relief, those essential rights and permanent interests, upon the >maintenance and preservation of which the future strength and >security of the country must forever depend." The determined >language of this speech, pointing to the continuance of the >American war, was echoed back by a majority of both Lords and >Commons. > In a few days after (Dec. 12), it was moved in the House of >Commons that a resolution should be adopted declaring it to be >their opinion "That all farther attempts to reduce the Americans >to obedience by force would be ineffectual, and injurious to the >true interests of Great Britain." >The History of the American Revolution, Vol. 2, Ramsay, 617-9 > > "If America gives you taxable objects on which you lay your >duties here, and gives you, at the same time, a surplus by a >foreign sale of her commodities to pay the duties on these >objects which you tax at home, she has performed her part to the >British revenue. But with regard to her own internal >establishments, she may, I doubt not she will, contribute in >moderation. I say in moderation, for she ought not to be >permitted to exhaust herself. She ought to be reserved to a war, >the weight of which, with the enemies that we are most likely to >have, must be considerable in her quarter of the globe. There >she may serve you, and serve you essentially. > For that service - for all service, whether of revenue, >trade, or empire - my trust is in her interest in the British >Constitution. My hold of the Colonies is in the close affection >which grows from common names, from kindred blood, from similar >privileges, and equal protection. These are ties which, through >light as air, are as strong as links of iron. Let the Colonists >always keep the idea of their civil rights associated with your >government, they will cling and grapple to you, and no force >under heaven will be of power to tear them from their >allegiance." >Speech of Sir Edmund Burke, before the House of Commons, March >22, 1775 > >"But my idea of it is this; that an empire is the aggregate of >many states under one common head, whether this head be a monarch >or a presiding republic." >Speech of Sir Edmund Burke, before the House of Commons, March >22, 1775 > > "What was it Franklin said, when asked what government have >you given us, in reply he said a Republic. Our fore fathers were >protecting their ass-ets and seeking to remain subject to the >king in a hidden way. For which they were to receive further >privileges. I would love to be able to look into the old English >records and see if their personal land holdings in England >increased, after the 1783 Peace Treaty and the 1787 >Constitution/Charter were approved, by an unsuspecting public." >(quote from my email response) > >"Men may lose little in property by the act which takes away all >their freedom. When a man is robbed of a trifle on the highway, >it is not the two-pence lost that constitutes the capital >outrage." >Speech of Sir Edmund Burke, before the House of Commons, March >22, 1775 > >"The people heard, indeed, from the beginning of these disputes, >one thing continually dinned in their ears, that reason and >justice demanded that the Americans, who paid no taxes, should be >compelled to contribute." >Speech of Sir Edmund Burke, before the House of Commons, March >22, 1775 > >"Let us get an American revenue as we have got an American >empire. English privileges have made it all that it is; English >privileges alone will make it all it can be." >Speech of Sir Edmund Burke, before the House of Commons, March >22, 1775 > > Adam Smith also gives incite into the kings mind set >in regards to the colonies paying for the benefits they receive >from him, and as to the contributions they should pay and how it >is to be done. > >"Their wealth was considered as our wealth. Whatever money was >sent out to them, it was said, came all back to us by the balance >of trade, and we could never become a farthing the poorer by any >expense which we could lay out upon them. They were our own in >every respect, and it was an expense laid out upon the >improvement of our own property and for the profitable employment >of our own people." >1776, AN INQUIRY INTO THE NATURE AND CAUSES OF THE WEALTH OF >NATIONS by Adam Smith > >OUR FORE FATHERS WANTED THE BENEFITS AND PRIVILEGES WITHOUT >PAYING THE TAX TO THE KING. > >"Resolved, 4. That the foundation of English liberty, and of all >free government, is a right in the people to participate in their >legislative council: and as the English colonists are not >represented, and from their local and other circumstances, can > [continued ...]
Return to Table of Contents for
Supreme Law School: E-mail