Showing posts with label constitution. Show all posts
Showing posts with label constitution. Show all posts


Should Libertarians Celebrate the SCOTUS Ruling on Same-Sex Marriage?

The Supreme Court of the United States has made several headline-generating decisions in the last week.  In a 5-4 ruling, this august body of the country's premiere jurists issued an irrevocable command to 13 states that banned same-sex marriage.  Going forward, all states will be required to license same-sex marriages and recognize those marriages entered into from other states.

The Libertarian Party has used this opportunity to showcase how forward-thinking and ahead of the times they are, publishing the headline "Libertarian Party's 40-yr marriage equality advocacy pays off with US Supreme Court decision".  Nicholas Sarwark, Chair of the Libertarian National Committee, said "we applaud and celebrate this victory" and that he's "glad to see the Supreme Court has upheld the equal rights of all Americans."

Certainly, libertarians can be happy at the outcome of the SCOTUS decision.  Unjust laws that forcibly prevented consenting adults from engaging in voluntary contracts have been reversed.  What's not to like?  Perhaps the optimum libertarian solution would have been to remove the violence of government from the marriage business completely, leaving it to churches and individuals to create their own contracts as they see fit.  Nevertheless, individuals are freer than they were before.  How could this not be a clear-cut win for liberty?

Libertarian Means and Ends

This question brings us to examine the means and ends of this event.  We might be happy with the outcome, but should we be wary of how it came about?  For the constitutionalist, this is likely to be no time for celebration.  Under an intellectually honest view of the constitution, there is no language that gives the federal government the power to infringe on state legislation in this way.  As one dissenting judge wrote,
“If you are among the many Americans — of whatever sexual orientation — who favor expanding same-sex marriage, by all means celebrate today’s decision…  Celebrate the achievement of a desired goal.  Celebrate the opportunity for a new expression of commitment to a partner.  Celebrate the availability of new benefits.  But do not celebrate the Constitution.  It had nothing to do with it.”
But of course, being a libertarian does not make one a constitutionalist.  We have a much brighter lantern to guide our way than our weak and powerless constitution.  Using the dual lens of self-ownership and the non-aggression principle, it is clear that consenting individuals have the right to enter into whatever sort of contract among themselves that they'd like.  On the flip side, individuals do not have the right to force their contract onto others, which is why getting government out of the marriage businesses would be the ideal solution.

In a free market of marriage that respected the property rights of everyone, perhaps some religions would offer same-sex marriage contracts while others would not.  Maybe new institutions would offer this service completely outside the religious temple.  From there, various voluntary solutions and market-based incentives would meet everyone's preference accordingly.  If some don't like it, there are plenty of non-violent options available that don't infringe on the rights of others.  Certainly this would be the outcome most aligned with each individual's rights being respected.  "Live and let live", it's a beautiful mantra.

In lieu of this optimum scenario, the question is again asked, should libertarians celebrate a ruling from the Supreme Court of the federal government that forces the states to license and recognize same sex marriage?  Without any regard to the merits of the constitution, the answer would be a qualified no.  The SCOTUS ruling brings about a libertarian end, but the means involved is quite counter to our long term goals.  Ultimately, this deference to 9 black-robed individuals governing 318 million people from D.C. is just one more precedent that is sure to be harmful to the long-run prospects of a free society.

Beware the Hand that Feeds You

Despite the LP's celebratory announcement, we should be hesitant to shout hosannas when a Supreme Court ruling dictates law to the states.  Every decision from that unelected and virtually unaccountable group that gives the federal government greater power is a net loss for liberty - even when libertarians are happy at the particular outcome.

Today, the SCOTUS issues a decree that happens to be consistent with libertarian principles, but literally the day before it issued a ruling that the federal government can pass laws requiring citizens of the 50 states to purchase a product from a private company.  How can we celebrate any decision passed down from such a bold and audacious body?  Why give any respectability to their decisions?  We are just shooting ourselves in the foot.  What happens to our credibility if we say that a supreme court decision "paid off" when they will not doubt issue 99 rulings that violate libertarian principles to every 1 decision that goes in our favor?

We can't just celebrate the outcome of this decision in a vacuum; all the factors must be examined before popping the champagne.  In a world where virtually every square inch is claimed to be the domain of one evil government or the other, in most territorial battles between rival gangs of costumed officials we are safe to say "a pox on both their houses".  But when one of those gangs is infinitely more powerful, more ruthless, and more arrogant than the other, we should seriously consider rooting for the underdog.  In other words, if we are stuck in a world of governments, the greater good is federalism.  I would rather have 50 separate rulers that each have a kingdom of 500 thousand to 38 million people than one supreme ruler that dictates the lives of 318 million people.

As much as I'd like to just ignore the evil doings of the criminals who presume to rule over me, I do so at my own peril.  If we want to fight back in the political arena, let's choose our battles wisely.  Individual libertarians can actually do something at the local level, whereas we have virtually zero control over what happens in the district of criminals.  So if we want to fight for marriage equality, or more precisely, the right of individuals to enter into voluntary contracts, then let's fight those laws where they exist.  If we find them at the city level, fight them there.  If they are at the county or state level, then bravely go forward into battle.  But if the struggle seems insurmountable, don't be so foolish as to celebrate when an even greater threat to liberty takes on your foe.  That hand may feed you today, but it will certainly strike you tomorrow.

A Dream for Soundbites

Do things have to always be so damn complicated?  It seems the prudent and principled libertarian is doomed to never accept simple, one word answers.  We can never say just "yes" or "no", it's always followed by a "but".  This isn't the result of a complex philosophy - what could be simpler than the self-evident proposition that individuals should control their own lives as long as they respect the rights of others?  Unfortunately, it's a result of the statist climate we live in, where every question seems to presuppose a government answer.  We're constantly asked the no-win question, "have you stopped beating your wife?"  While we carefully explain our position with logic and attention to detail, our opponents keep things simple by playing on the ignorance and desire for immediate gratification of the American boobousie.

As the nation collectively knee-jerks into total insanity by banning the confederate flag, even at relevant historic sites, we find ourselves in the same nuanced situation.  Libertarianism is the foremost philosophy against the evils of slavery and we obviously condemn the Confederacy for their crimes.  But the Civil War wasn't a fight over slavery, it was about secession.  The North invaded the South to prevent their independence, and we can only speculate into the realms of alternative history as to how things would have turned out if the slaves were freed at a different time and under different circumstances with the noble right of secession left unscathed.  Instead of an easy question such as, "are you against slavery", we ask the more complex question, "did the happy outcome of freeing the slaves outweigh losing the right to secession?"

There was a day when the phrase "I may disagree with what you say, but I will fight for your right to say it" was pure Americana.  Now things aren't so clear.  Rather than wanting to be free to exercise one's rights while respecting the rights of others, now serious talk is made of putting limitations on our rights to prevent hurt feelings of self-worth or entitlement.  In the era of victimhood, the desire for privileges to remedy some real or imagined inequity trumps all.

How ironic that during these side-show events with the SCOTUS ruling for same-sex marriage and the extreme PC battle against the confederate flag, the main event is getting the faintest attention.  Of course the Trans-Pacific Partnership would be passed by the Senate while the legacy media covers such critical news as the defacement of statues and changing the names of lakes.  After all, it's just a secret treaty that that will create an international governing body that, once created, will be a living thing - dictating laws to contracting nations just as the European Union forces policy on the nations of Europe.

Just as there was once a day long past when state sovereignty was respected and the constitution was a real barrier to the inclination to power in Washington, we may quickly be coming to a time when we will fondly remember the days when the Supreme Court made the laws for our nation - at least they claim to be American!  If our cries of righteous indignation barely register a whisper to our elected representatives at the federal level, what hope do we have as we transition to a regional government, let alone a world government?


As much as I'd be delighted to celebrate a victory without reservation, we need to keep our eyes on the bigger picture.  It's not enough to simply support every event that claims to be a win for liberty, we must ensure that the means by which it is achieved is also aligned with our best interest.  If given a devil's choice between a world government with a "libertarian" dictator and what we have today, I'd begrudgingly but wisely side with the latter.  Hayek showed us why "the worst get on top", and once a governmental mechanism is created it is nearly impossible to dismantle.  Like some suicidal robot programmed for destruction, the benevolent dictatorship will attract every form of sociopath who will attempt to seize those reigns of power.  If history is to be our guide, whenever this happens hundreds of millions die as a result.

Let's be smarter than that.  We cannot accept the easy victory on a minor battle when it ensures that we will lose the war.  In a world full of competing states, the crafty libertarian learns to pit his enemies against each other.  While we unambiguously denounce all forms of force and violence against the innocent, we learn to make unlikely alliances to fight the greatest evil: the nation over the world government, the state over the nation, the city over the state, and most importantly, the individual over them all.


Lawyer Tricks & Vampire Ethics

One of the most important ways to get involved with the Libertarian Party is to run as a candidate for public office.  In 2010 I had a great time running an educational campaign for State Representative for District 49.  I wasn't in it to win it, but I was able to spread the message by answering questionnaires and with newspaper, radio, and television interviews.  The most rewarding part of the experience was being invited to a local middle school to give a presentation about libertarianism.

Unfortunately, this year I couldn't make the commitment to run an educational campaign, so instead I signed up to be a "paper candidate" for a local office.  This means I'm not actively campaigning, but still helping the LP by giving a libertarian option for voters that will help get our numbers up in the aggregate.  This November we will have 132 candidates on the ballot across Texas and I'll be running for Justice of the Peace for Travis County, a position that I would seem to be totally under-qualified for and would seriously impede my career in IT Consulting if I were to win.

However, the law is something that I've been studying for a number of years and if I somehow won this race I would be willing to put my career on hold to serve out the term.  The local chapter of the League of Women Voters sent a questionnaire concerning the race, but only two questions allowing 450 character answers didn't leave much of an opportunity to explain my platform.  Nevertheless, I was able to give a standard libertarian answer for the question of how I would ensure that the role of "the people's court" is fulfilled:
"As JOP I would radically change the goal of the JP court from focusing on revenue generation for the state to protecting the rights of the individual.  This means rightly prosecuting crimes that are malum in se, evil in themselves, while vigorously defending people accused of "crimes" that are malum prohibitum, illegal by statute.  In this way the people will see the court as a tool for seeking justice, not as a device for taking their liberties."
In other words, if you're going to have a state, use it as a tool for defensive purposes only.  Don't use it for enforcing statutes against victimless crimes just to steal people's money.  That's pretty basic libertarianism 101 stuff.  It was the second question that I found more interesting.  What changes, if any, are needed in court processes and procedures to make the court more efficient and effective in fulfilling its duties?
"The entire court system is engaged in a variety of scams and conspiracies to rob the people of their liberties.  Lawyer tricks confuse people into waiving their natural rights and volunteering into oppressive contracts with the state.  I would not seek to make the court more efficient in these corrupt machinations, instead I desire a court that effectively presumes innocence and honors due process rights of the defendant from agents of the state."
Scams and conspiracies?  Lawyer tricks?  Corrupt machinations?  These allegations require some explanation.

Boss Hoggism or Legal Sleight of Hand

During my process of waking up, Aaron Russo's documentary America: Freedom to Fascism had a big impact on me, particularly the segments on the constitutionality and legality of the income tax.  It's one thing to look at black operations by CIA type groups, they happen in the shadows and don't require many people to execute.  But these allegations made about the income tax were something else entirely, a conspiracy of an entirely different nature.

One of the most credible people interviewed in the film on this topic was Joe Banister.  Like other former IRS agents, it all started when he heard of the $50,000 challenge to show the law that required the average person to file a 1040 and pay a tax on his labor.  As a special agent of the Criminal Investigation Division for the IRS, Mr. Banister thought this challenge was something he could easily accomplish to dispel the rumors.  Months later, Banister submitted a preliminary report to his supervisors with his startling conclusions regarding the income tax.  Instead of proving the "anti-taxers" wrong, he ended up giving his resignation to his longtime employer and becoming one of the leading figures in the tax honesty movement.

But for people like Mr. Banister it doesn't end there.  The most credible and prominent people in the tax honesty movement are invariably drug before a kangaroo court and indicted on something, anything.  Even when they win on appeal it is only through a long fight over multiple years that drains their life savings.  It's a battle that destroys marriages, lives, family - and for what?  It takes a special kind of person that holds their integrity above all else to choose to fight this battle rather than to just give in and let the tax man have his cut.

Seeing people like Irwin Schiff, Sherry Jackson, Joe Banister, and others relentlessly prosecuted to make an example for the rest of us has a real chilling effect.  What is to be done when the system is so lawless?  How do you fight a system with a clique of boss hoggs running things at the top that don't give a damn what the law actually says?  If you try to fight back and stand on your rights you are subject to their army of useful idiots that follow orders and don’t know any better.  It's a pretty depressing and shameful situation we're in.

It was through only after reading Peter Eric Hendrickson's Cracking the Code and listening to the Rule of Law Radio show for several years that I've slowly come to a different conclusion about our predicament.  Rather than seeing the conspirators as brutish criminals that are totally lawless and respect nothing but violence, I see them as intelligent criminals that use complex legalese and magician's sleight of hand tricks on the meaning of words themselves.  They have an entirely different lexicon of legal terminology that's completely different from the common meaning of words and from their perspective if you're ignorant enough to fall for their elaborate scams then you deserve what you get.

They aren't completely amoral, they have their own system of ethics - the ethics of a vampire.  Just as the mythical vampire can't feast on your blood unless you are foolish enough to invite him into your home, even if you do so under mistaken pretenses, this criminal class preys on people's gullibility and faith in government to trick them into volunteering into private contracts that have no legal, lawful or ethical foundation.  Buyer beware.  Read the fine print.  These are the mottos that give their conscience sanction.  Ignore them at your own risk.

Define Your Terms

Words have meaning, and when words are put to parchment and signed by powerful people to become "laws" they have the force of the state behind them.  This means that if you violate these laws, whether deliberately, through ignorance, or even innocent misunderstanding, men with guns will follow orders and steal your property, kidnap you, lock you in a cage, and even kill you.  Clearly, the first step on the path to avoiding the violence of the state is to understand the meaning of the laws to know what duties, responsibilities, and constraints bind your actions.  But the meanings of words change all the time - look at any page from the Urban Dictionary and you'll find examples of words that have a radically different meaning then they did 50, 20 or even 5 years ago.  The point being, if a law is created that imposes certain duties on the governed, then new or different duties cannot be created simply by the result of certain words having their meaning changed over time.

My favorite example of this is the word "regulate".  Today it means that 100,000 bureaucrats can tell you what to do in virtually every area of your life, but in the time of the Constitution it meant "to keep regular."  For example, "regulating the value of coin" instructed the congress to keep it from overly fluctuating through inflation and deflation, "regulating commerce among the states" allowed the federal government to prevent the states from enacting tariffs against each other, and having a "well regulated Militia" meant the individuals compromising that militia were well trained and had properly working firearms.

It's hard enough to comply with all the laws when there are so many that it's even impossible for the federal government to give an estimate, but it would be impossible if the law constantly changed as the common usage of words did as well.  Lucky for us, words have special meanings when they are specifically defined in statutes, and if they are not defined there you look for the meaning in a law dictionary like Bouvier's or Black's Law Dictionary.  Unlucky for us, this double-edged sword is the source of the lawyer trickery that fool hapless saps into volunteering into contracts, submitting to jurisdictions, and otherwise opting themselves in to requirements and obligations that have no legal basis.

Before visiting three of the biggest scams that rely on legal sleight of hand, let's review a word that is central to understanding all of them: include, includes, including.  In common language, the word "includes" would be translated to "such as".  For example, "I enjoy eating fruit, including apples".  Under a normal context I may also enjoy eating oranges, but in the world of legalese we may find that this word is not one of enlargement, but one of restriction.  Instead of translating to "such as", includes is defined as "means".  The impact is that, for the purpose of that sentence, the common definition of "fruit" no longer applies and now "fruit" means apples and only apples.

There is a Latin term for this, inclusio unius est exclusio alterius, "the inclusion of one is the exclusion of another."  According to Black's Law, "When certain persons or things are specified in a law, contract, or will, an intention to exclude all others from its operation may be inferred.  Under this maxim, if statute specifies one exception to a general rule or assumes to specify the effects of a certain provision, other exceptions or effects are excluded.”  There are websites filled with quotes from supreme court rulings, hundred page treatises, and finely written essays dedicated to this seemingly innocuous term because of how this word can create multi-layered definitions that have to be carefully analyzed to have any chance of arriving at the correct interpretation.  As we'll see, it is the cornerstone of some of the most invasive laws that impact us every moment of our waking lives, but with a correct understanding of what it means in legalese they just melt away like snow on a sunny day.

Cracking the Code

The income tax: is there a more destructive, unjust, or idiotic law?  It is a fact that taxes are used to deter behavior, hence we have "sin taxes" like those on cigarettes.  So why would any society seek to deter productivity?  The harder one works, the more one earns, the more is taken away, not just proportionally but progressively.  How much wealth was never created because doing so would bump one into the next "bracket" and cause a net loss, incentivizing those to choose leisure instead of labor?

The income tax exposes the presumption of our political leaders: that they are our masters, that they own us.  The fruit of my labor is not mine, but the governments, and those men with guns will choose how much will be returned to me.  In the "land of the free", where we supposedly fought a civil war to abolish slavery, it is a sad lesson how quickly we accepted new masters.

A direct tax on income is also blatantly unconstitutional.  The constitution gives two and only two types of taxation: direct and apportioned or indirect and unapportioned.  In the first case the federal government can only directly tax the people if the tax is apportioned by the state populations.  In the second case it can only tax the people without regards to state enumeration if it is indirect, such as a tax on tobacco that one can avoid by growing their own tobacco or refraining from its use.  As described in America: Freedom to Fascism, Supreme Court rulings declared an income tax unconstitutional before the 16th amendment and after its passage they ruled that it granted no new powers of taxation.  So if they didn't have it before, and they didn't get it, then how is it that we all sign self-confession forms under penalty of perjury every year (5th amendment, anyone?).

But what if it didn't have to be this way?  When the tax code was put on the internet, for the first time allowing one to quickly execute key word searches across its hundreds of pages and three million words, Peter Eric Hendrickson claimed that he cracked the code to this mystery.  By finding every use and definition of terms like "income", "wages", "employee", "employer", and "trade or business", he discovered that the income tax could actually comply with the constitution and the supreme court rulings but under this legalese interpretation the income tax laws no longer applied to the vast majority of private individuals.

As quoted and explained in detail throughout the book chapter and verse, the income tax is filled with particular definitions and circular logic that results in it only being applicable to the payment of federal government workers.

"Wages" is defined as "all remuneration... for services performed by an employee for an employer", where employee is defined as including "an officer, employee, or elected official of the United States, a State, or any political subdivision thereof, or the District of Colombia, or any agency or instrumentality of any one or more of the foregoing."

Similarly, the term "trade or business" includes "the performance of the functions of a public office".  "Wages" is defined as "including personal service as an officer or employee of a State", and then "state" is "construed to include the District of Colombia".

Remembering the legalese definition of "includes", does it sound like you work for an "employer"?  Are you engaged in a "trade or business"? Do you earn "wages" or "income"? You may not if you don’t work for the federal government!

Why would it be constitutional to put an income tax on federal government workers but not the rest of us in the public sector?  Remember that one of the constitutional taxes is indirect and unapportioned, and that government workers don't really pay taxes, they consume tax money.  If someone gives you $20, and then takes $5, did they "tax" any money, or did they just give you $15?  That is the crux of the issue - when the same entity is paying "gross income" and "withholding" a certain percentage and then paying "net income", then what does it matter what bookkeeping mumbo-jumbo is happening, the net result is that entity, the federal government, is paying its workers.  Working for the federal government is not a right, it is a privilege, and therefore it would fall under the indirect and unapportioned taxing power of the constitution.

So when millions of people file 1040 confession forms and say "I'm an employee", "I make wages" and "I'm engaged in a trade or business" the government sits back and nods, happy to keep the fantasy going.  If you're willing to make these claims the government won't be correcting you - that's up for you to figure out.

Drivers License: Transport or Travel?

One of the fundamental differences between rights and privileges concerns the requirement for a license to use property.  The owner of property can exercise all the rights associated with the property, with the only limitation being not to violate the rights of others.  The owner can extend a privilege concerning the property in the form of a license, which is permission to perform some action that, without such authorization, would constitute an illegal action or trespass.

Thus, what do we make of the situation when a libertarian activist asks a traffic officer if he's being detained on a warrantless DUI checkpoint which he believes to be unconstitutional, and the cop snarls, "driving's a privilege, not a right!"  Here we have a dilemma.  Do you own your vehicle?  If you did, you'd have certain rights over it, not privileges granted by a license.  The Supreme Court has ruled that we have a right to travel, a right of locomotion, a right to move from one place to another according to inclination, a right of free transit from or through the territory of any state.  It seems plausible, after all we pay for the roads with the tax on gasoline, but this conflicts with our daily experience that a traffic officer can pull us over, demand our license, and impound our vehicle on the flimsiest of pretenses, especially since the militarization of the police and the escalation of the war on drugs.

Once again, it seems we might have a conspiracy of lawyer tricks run by criminals with vampire ethics and enforced by useful idiots that have never read or understood the law they believe to be rightly enforcing.

Eddie Craig is an Air Force veteran and a former Nacogdoches Sheriff Deputy that has spent the last 12 years researching various Texas Codes, especially the Transportation Code.  I first heard him on Rule of Law Radio where he described the myriad violations that occur during every traffic stop according to the Texas Transportation Code.  Eventually he compiled his research into a workbook and traffic seminar, and I was able to attend his first presentation at Brave New Bookstore.  Unsurprisingly, his findings echoed many of the same themes I had already found when researching the income tax.  It seemed there was a code to crack concerning the traffic laws as well, and Mr. Craig had found it.

Assuming we have a right to use our property, our personal vehicles, the first question to ask is what is a drivers license and who needs one?  The Texas Transportation Code defines it as "authorization issued by the department for the operation of a motor vehicle" and claims that a person "may not operate a motor vehicle on a highway in this state unless the person holds a driver's license."

The next question is, what is a motor vehicle?  It is consistently defined as "a device in or by which a person or property is or may be transported or drawn on a public highway".  Unsurprisingly, we consistently see the word transportation used in these definitions, but what is surprising is that it's never defined anywhere in the Transportation Code.  According to our hierarchy of legal definitions, this means we need to look at legal dictionaries and the case law that goes with it.

In Black's Law Dictionary, transportation is defined as "The removal of goods or persons from one place to another, by a carrier."  And this is where it gets interesting.  According to every legal dictionary a carrier, a common carrier, a contract carrier, and even a private carrier are all referencing the act of transportation of passengers or freight for pay.  Carriers are in the "regular business of transporting people and / or freight".

So if we put this all together, one needs a driver's license to operate a "motor vehicle", which is a device used in "transportation", which is the act that a "carrier" engages in when operating a business of transporting people and / or freight for payment.  I don't drive a taxi.  I'm not hauling semi-trailers across the country for a living.  So why again do I have a driver's license?

The reason the government can license and register the act of running a business off the use of the roads is because those individuals are exercising a privilege.  This is in contrast to private individuals that have a right to travel in their personal property on the public roads.  Those roads are owned by the people and are for the general public's convenience and pleasure.  Using the roads for business is an extra-ordinary use of the public roads and that is why they can be licensed, because those people are engaged in using publicly owned property to make money.  In other words, they are engaged in commerce.  Regulating ("keeping regular") interstate commerce is a power that is specifically delegated to governments to do - not to infringe in the rightful use of our private property.

So the next time you get pulled over for speeding, take a look at the statute that authorizes the department of transportation to erect speed signs and ask, "who do speed signs apply to?"  Maybe the traffic officer is confusing you for someone engaged in commerce.

Gold Fringe Flags, Strawmen, and Billion Dollar Birth Certificates

You're not an "employee", you don’t earn "income", you don't operate a "motor vehicle", and you don't engage in "transportation".  Still following along?  If so, this next topic may stretch your credulity to its limit.  It has its origins in the beginning of the country, leaving the gold standard, and the moment you were born.  It includes gold fringed flags, admiralty law, your name in all capital letters (Capitis Diminutio Maxima), your birth certificate, treasury bonds, your "straw man" or "legal fiction", and every interaction you've ever had with government, police officers, courts, and corporations.  This one goes down the deepest trails of the rabbit hole, and sometimes you'll wonder if the proponents of these theories are government agents trying to entrap you, but if you take the time to survey the information and take a step back the resulting landscape comes together consistently, and it just figures that we'd live in a world where something this crazy could be true.

The best place to begin might be with your strawman, your legal fiction, the corporate entity that was created the moment the ink was dry on your birth certificate.  If your parents named you John Doe, your straw man might be named JOHN DOE.  This character is a "person", but unlike a flesh-and-blood human being, he is a legalese "person", a n artificial person or corporation.  This corporate person can sign contracts, assume duties, incur penalties, and it has the unfortunate tendency to get people confused with you, the flesh-and-blood human being.

That bad side of this situation is that this elaborate scam is what gives all the lower courts such as traffic courts, family courts, and tax courts the jurisdiction to act upon you - because you volunteer into it!  Whenever a summons appears that asks for "JOHN DOE" and you show up saying, "that's me" no one is going to correct you.  Whenever they ask you if you "understand the charges" you are agreeing that you "stand under" their jurisdiction and from then on volunteer into their private contract.  Instead of living under common law, your straw man operates under admiralty law because a birth certificate literally hands over the new born's straw man to the government as a ward of the state, just as a ship wrecked in the sea can be found and claimed by new owners.  This is why court rooms have a gold fringed flag, because they are operating under admiralty law.  This explains why a judge can say "I don't want the constitution brought up in my court", because his court has nothing to do with the constitution, it is all private contracts through color of law like the Uniform Commercial Code.

This isn't just about tricking you to get jurisdiction for petty fines and fees, your straw man is also worth money, a lot of money.  This is where the theory gets into the creation of the country and leaving the gold standard - that without lawful money of gold and silver to discharge debts the government had to create a way for citizens to discharge their obligations in the new world of fiat money.  Hence, you find the curious phenomenon that your birth certificate will have a serial number and a stamp or seal from an entity like the American Bank Note Company.  Once the birth certificate / bank note is signed, it goes to the Department of Commerce, and from there to the International Monetary Fund (IMF).  At this point it's listed as collateral for the UNITED STATES CORPORATION so that the gold ole USA can take out a loan for millions with our birth certificate as collateral.  Why would they think of our birth certificate as collateral?  Because we are going to be good cattle for our masters, we'll volunteer into contracts, work as "employees", pay "income", submit to registration, apply for licenses and pay all kinds of penalties and fees for activities that should be absolute rights.

If there is a good side to this scenario, it's that in the farthest depths of patriot mythology you'll find references to "commercial redemption", the "secured party creditor process", and "reclaiming your strawman".  The idea is that there are certain forms you can sign and actions you can take to reclaim your "legal fiction" from being a tool of the state and use it for your own purposes - and that also includes those millions of dollars of fiat currency tied to your birth certificate / bank note.  The UCC1 Financing Statement tells the public that you officially reclaim control over your Agent in commerce, your strawman.  Your parents may have abandoned him to the government, but now you're ready and willing to take him back.  File a few more forms and you'll have direct access to an account at the Treasury in your strawman's name, you'll be filing tax forms on behalf of your strawman, and you'll regain your status as a sovereign human being, a secure party creditor, at the same level of states, banks, and the gods themselves.


Now the question comes, after you've thoroughly researched these claims for yourself, what do you do about it?  If the answer is nothing, then it doesn't really matter whether the men behind the curtain are lawless thugs or just clever schemers.  If you knowingly continue to volunteer into contracts, assume obligations, and opt-in to taxes that don't apply to you then the only thing that's changed is you no longer have the right to complain about any of it.

That said, there is a risk / reward tolerance for everyone, and these are important decisions that should not be taken lightly.  I ran into Joe Banister at the Austin airport once and asked him what he thought about Cracking the Code.  He said it was 100% accurate, but the question remains, is this a battle that you are willing to fight yourself, or are you going to instead support people that are fighting it on your behalf?

Accepting the risk really depends on the magnitude of the reward.  With cracking the code the risk comes if you lose your nerve and admit that you make "income" after all, then you could be slapped with a $5,000 frivolous filing fee.  But if you stick to your guns you may instead receive a hefty check from the Treasury department and have your return added to the Bulletin Board displaying the $11,000,000+ from the tens of thousands of returns that have used the CTC method.

If you're going to cut up your drivers license, burn your registration, and throw away your license plate it seems like you are in for some battles ahead.  Even doing everything right, traffic cops will take you to jail and impound your vehicle out of ignorance, and only through fighting legal battles, suing the county and police departments, and battling lengthy appeals will you finally get to the situation where a patrolling cop radios in your suspicious car that doesn't have a license plate only to have HQ radio back "don't mess with him, he's not worth the trouble".  That is the price to travel as a free man.

When I first heard about the strawman / Secured Party Creditor strategy on Rule of Law Radio I categorized it as patriot mythology that was more likely to be a Federal sting operation than anything real.  Since then I've met someone that's gone through the process and has shown me his documents and explained how he has paid his taxes, utility bills, and even purchased real estate through his reclaimed strawman.  He also warned that if you don't do it correctly you could go to jail for securities fraud.

Do the research, weigh your options, and make a decision: will you continue to invite the vampires in, or will you kick them out once and for all?


The Constitution and Intellectual Honesty

Should we promote healthy eating habits?  Should we go to Mars?  Should we protect intellectual property on the internet?  When I respond to loaded questions like these, I try to be very careful to explore all of the implications and structure my arguments against the proposals into logical categories.  Why do I assume I am against?  Because 99% of the time the person asking these questions equates the word "we" with the government.  Should the parent promote healthy eating habits to his child?  Certainly.  Should a group of individuals calling themselves the government print or steal money to pay for the promotion of eating habits they define to be healthy?  A resounding No!

Thus, I may make a moral argument that any activity the government engages in, however benign on the surface, is paid for with stolen money and is enforced with the barrel of a gun, and that general insight is a sufficient reason to be against it.  I may make an economic argument that if we trace the consequences of a given government policy, not just for the short run, but for the long term, and not just the impacts to one group, but to all groups, we will find numerous reasons in equity and justice to be against it.  I may also make pragmatic arguments using history to show examples of previous instances when good intentions mixed with government power had very bad outcomes.

However, my simplest argument, and the one that I have the most difficulty convincing people of, is the constitutional argument.  This is the explanation that Ron Paul has given hundreds of times when asked why he was the lone dissenting voice in a 434 to 1 vote.  He will say the constitution doesn't give the authorization to create a department of homeland security, or to pass an anti-spam e-mail bill, or to give a gold medal to Mother Theresa.  In some cases, it might even be a bill that Dr. No would like to pass, but if he doesn't find authorization in the constitution, he feels that he must obey his oath of office and vote no just the same.  So what is it that Dr. Ron Paul sees in the Constitution that the other 434 members of Congress do not?

It's safe to say that Dr. Paul would not agree with my college professor who told me that the constitution is a "living document" that can change and adapt to meet the challenges of the day.  He wasn't referring to the ability to amend the constitution, but rather to re-interpret it in order to discover new powers that eluded previous administrations.  Rather than take this "living document" approach to interpretation, Dr. Paul would say that he accepts a strict or literal interpretation of the constitution: it is written in English, and it means what it says.

Is the constitution a blank slate that be interpreted to give the federal government the power to write and enforce any law it can pass?  Or does the federal government only have the 17 powers enumerated in Article I, Section 8, with all other powers belonging to the States and to the people?  Unlike Nancy Pelosi, who responded, "Are you serious?" when a reporter asked her where the Constitution grants Congress authority to enact an individual health insurance mandate, I think this is a very serious question that is long overdue for open, honest dialogue.

My goal is to convince you that history, logic, and intellectual honesty are on the side of a strict interpretation of the constitution.  While we may differ on what a government should be able to do, we need to come to an agreement on what our government can do.  If you want to change the rules, then amend the constitution.  It's been done before, and it can be done again.  I will even propose an amendment that would legalize all of the unconstitutional practices engaged in by our government to show that I am sincere about wanting a level playing field where we all follow the same rules and know the boundaries of what our government can and cannot do.

Drafting this proposed amendment is the least I can do, because the current arrangement, over a century old, of having our politicians take a sworn oath to protect, defend, and enforce a document that they either do not read, do not understand, or purposefully work to subvert, is a shameful practice not worthy of a free people.

I first heard this proposition in Michael Badnarik's Constitution Class.  Take the Red Pill.

Constitution 101

Most have heard of divided powers or checks and balances, but may not understand what that means in practice, especially in light of how the federal government operates today.  At an over-simplified level, think of the British Monarchy that American revolutionaries fought a war against.  Ignoring the few restrictions imposed by Magna Carta, the King of England could write, enforce, and judge the laws of the land.  All sovereign power resided in the King.  While Hamilton and his branch of the founding fathers wanted to bring this form of government to America, the only way to sell the 13 colonies then united under the Articles of Confederation into ratifying the Constitution was to tell them that they were setting up a government of divided powers, relieving the colonists of the concern that they were setting up a government just as powerful and prone to tyranny as the one they just fought off.

Thus, instead of granting all sovereign powers to a single man or group of oligarchs, the constitution claimed to divide the powers normally exercised by a king amongst different branches and groups of people, thinking that their individual ambitions would prevent power from flowing to a central source, as each branch would want to defend their powers in their own self-interest.  Hence, Articles I, II, and III of the Constitution set up the legislative, executive, and judicial branches of the federal government, respectively.

Article I, Section 1 of the Constitution says, "All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives".  The power to legislate is the power to write laws.  Article II of the Constitution defines the executive Power, the power to execute or enforce the laws, in a President of the United States.  Article III grants the judicial Power, to judge the laws and cases under the Constitution, to a Supreme Court.

Going back to Article I, we find that the first few sections define what Congress is, how they will be elected, how the Senate and House of Representatives will interact with each other, and how bills will be proposed and passed.  It isn't until Article I, Section 8 that we arrive at the 17 Powers delegated to the Congress, that I argue, are the only powers that legislation can be passed in pursuance thereof.

Section 8 starts, "The Congress shall have the Power to lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States."  It then enumerates 16 additional powers, including the power to borrow Money, to coin Money, to set up Post Offices, to declare War, to provide a Navy, and others.  It concludes with the last power, "To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Office thereof."

It seems clear to me that the only powers the federal government would have are those delegated to Congress in Article I, Section 8, and the only laws they would be able to pass would be those necessary and proper to carry out those laws.  Thus, to execute the power of establishing a post office, the congress could enact legislation to tax or borrow money for its creation, make purchase orders to build the post offices, hire people to be post men, etc.

Not yet trusting the arguments of the federalists who were promoting the adoption of the Constitution, the states wouldn't ratify it until it was amended with the Bill of Rights.  This amendment detailed some of the specific individual rights that no government law could violate, and reiterated the understanding made by the federalists that the federal government was one of specific and limited powers.  Article X of the Bill of Rights makes it plain as day what powers the government had, and for those powers it doesn't have, who has them:

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

What more needs to be said?  If something is reserved to me, can it also be yours?  Clearly, the only laws the federal government can constitutionally pass, execute, and judge upon are those in pursuit of their 17 enumerated powers.  All other powers not delegated belong to the States, and to the people.  So while there is nothing in the Constitution prohibiting the State of Rhode Island from creating a Department of Education, or prohibiting me, one of the people, from buying and selling health insurance, this is not something the federal government can engage in.

Answering Objections

The first objection that I want to answer questions my authority to have any kind of opinion as to what is constitutional.  Where is my black robe and gavel?  Only those dressed in such a costume are allowed to think about the limits of federal government power.  In other words, "Isn't it the supreme court's job to decide what is and isn't constitutional?"

The Supreme Court's powers are outlined in Article III, and no where does it say that they are to be the sole deciders of what is or isn't constitutional.  That idea didn't originate in the Constitution, but was declared by the Supreme Court itself in Marbury vs. Madison.  How does that have any more legitimacy than if the Congress passed legislation declaring itself the sole decider of constitutionality, or if the President executed a signing statement declaring that he is sole decider of what is or isn't constitutional, or if the State legislature of Tennessee did the same by passing legislation?  The answer is they are all wrong, none are the final authority on issues of constitutionality, as they are all co-equal judges of the constitutional contract to which they are equal parties.

This idea of all the states being co-equal judges as to matters of constitutionality is not a new idea, but is as old as the Constitution itself.  Thomas E. Wood's book Nullification: How to Resist Federal Tyranny in the 21st Century highlights many important documents from State legislatures as they affirmed their responsibility to nullify federal laws they deemed unconstitutional, such as the notorious Alien and Sedition Act.  While the Alien and Sedition Act was used by my college professor as proof that the constitution doesn't really mean anything, since it was clearly violated with this law so close to its creation, he ignored important history from the states that makes the opposite case.

Consider the Virginia Resolutions of 1798, which explicitly declared the Alien and Sedition Act unconstitutional because it "exercises a power nowhere delegated to the federal government" and even worse is "positively forbidden by one of the amendments thereto".

The Kentucky Resolutions of 1798 were approved by the Kentucky House and Senate, and the first paragraph is worth quoting in its entirety for its clear and unambiguous language:
"Resolved, That the several states composing the United States of America are not united on the principle of unlimited submission to their general government; but that, by compact, under the style and title of a Constitution for the United States, and of amendments thereto, they constituted a general government for special purposes, delegated to that government certain definite powers, reserving, each state to itself, the residuary mass of right to their own self-government; and that whensoever the general government assumes undelegated powers, its acts are unauthoritative, void, and of no force; that to this compact each state acceded as a state, and is an integral party; that this government, created by this compact, was not made the exclusive or final judge of the extent of the powers delegated to itself, since that would have made its discretion, and not the Constitution, the measure of its powers; but that, as in all other cases of compact among powers having no common judge, each party has an equal right to judge for itself, as well of infractions as of the mode and measure of redress."
Just because the Supreme Court declared itself the final judge of constitutionality contrary to the view the States historically held, this doesn't preclude the Supreme Court from making correct decisions.  So let's look at the three arguments they use when declaring that powers not specifically delegated to the federal government in Article I, Section 8 are constitutional.

General Welfare

Can the federal government make any law that is for the "general welfare"?  Again, let's quote the offending passage in the context that this was the first of the 17 enumerated powers:
"The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defense and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;"
For those that like arguments in the form of an appeal to authority as well as majority rule, we see that two of the founding fathers, author of the Declaration of Independence Thomas Jefferson, as well as James Madison, father of the Constitution, both took a narrow interpretation of the general welfare clause against Alexander Hamilton, who was the first to argue a broad interpretation.

Jefferson explained,
“[T]he laying of taxes is the power, and the general welfare the purpose for which the power is to be exercised. They [Congress] are not to lay taxes ad libitum for any purpose they please; but only to pay the debts or provide for the welfare of the Union. In like manner, they are not to do anything they please to provide for the general welfare, but only to lay taxes for that purpose.”
Similarly, James Madison said that spending must be tied to one of the other specifically enumerated powers, and is not a specific grant of power, but a statement of purpose qualifying the power to tax.

So Alexander Hamilton disagreed, arguing that spending is an enumerated power that Congress can exercise independently of the others if it can be construed to benefit the general welfare.  Is this all there is to the story, an honest disagreement about what general welfare really means?

Unfortunately, after reading The Federalist Papers, The Anti-Federalist Papers, and Thomas DiLorenzo's book Hamilton's Curse: How Jefferson's Arch Enemy Betrayed the American Revolution--and What It Means for Americans Today, I have come to take a more conspiratorial view of this matter.  In the Federalist Papers, of which Hamilton was one of the main authors, we see them assuring the public to not take the warnings of the anti-Federalists seriously.  The Federalists said again and again that State's rights would be intact, just as they were under the Articles of Confederation, and that this federal government would be a limited one of definite powers.  Yet, just as soon as the Constitution was ratified, we see Hamilton singing another tune as secretary of Treasury in his Report on Manufacturers where he first claims "the power to raise money is plenary and indefinite" and "The terms general Welfare were doubtless intended to signify more than was expressed".

Not only did Hamilton promote this treacherous idea during his tenure as secretary of Treasury, but he also first promoted the idea of "implied powers" in his Opinion on the Constitutionality of the Bank of the United States.  He wrote, "there are implied, as well as express powers, and that the former are as effectually delegated as the latter."

This is what I mean by intellectual honesty.  During the secret Constitutional Conventions Hamilton was promoting all kinds of ideas that were shot down. He wanted the Constitution to create an all powerful National government with a permanent president and senate, where the president would be a kind of king who would appoint governors over vassal states with veto power over the laws.  He didn't get what he wanted, so he said what needed to be said in order to convince the states to ratify the Constitution, and the moment it was passed he used his influence to promote a reinterpretation to create his national government of unlimited powers using stealth and lawyer tricks because he couldn't succeed in open and honest debate.

Interstate Commerce

The interstate commerce clause has been used to justify every power usurped by the federal government from Obamacare, to gun-free school zones, to fining someone for growing too much wheat.  It is the third power expressly delegated to congress, and it says in Article I, Section 8, Clause 3:
"To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes"
So what does regulate mean?  Today, regulate means to create laws and rules.  Our toilets are federally regulated by the government to use no more than 1.6 gallons per flush.  Guns are regulated with rules concerning how many bullets can be in a magazine.  Traffic is regulated by signs, lights, and an army of police to enforce them.

But what did regulate mean when the Constitution was written?  Even the Supreme Court let out a bit of honesty in Gonzales v. Raich in 2005:
"The Commerce Clause emerged as the Framers' response to the central problem giving rise to the Constitution itself: the absence of any federal commerce power under the Articles of Confederation.  For the first century of our history, the primary use of the Clause was to preclude the kind of discriminatory state legislation that had once been permissible."
James Madison argued that regulate meant to "keep regular", and the power to regulate commerce was for the purpose of preventing the states from enacting tariffs against each other that would favor in-state businesses.  So Virginia couldn't impose a 100% tax on its imports of candles to encourage its domestic candle-makers at the expense of Vermont's candle-makers, thus keeping commerce between the states "regular".

The definition of regulate can be confirmed in other areas of the Constitution, such as Article I, Section 8, Clause 5:
"To coin Money, and regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures".
Does anyone think this meant to pass and enforce laws about what the value of money must be worth?  No, it meant to keep the value of money regular.  The colonies had numerous disasters experimenting with paper money prior to the Constitution, so they gave Congress the power of normalizing the value of money by limiting it to gold and silver coin, which cannot be wildly inflated like paper money.

We also see the word regulate in Article II of the Bill of Rights:
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
Today, the word regulate supposedly gives the government the power to dictate how many rounds my rifle can have, how long the barrel must be, and whether or not it can be suppressed, semi-auto or full-auto, etc.  However, when the Constitution was written a well regulated Militia did not mean the government could tell the colonists what types of muskets they could use, as shown in The Founders' Second Amendment: Origins of the Right to Bear Arms by Stephen P. Halbrook.  He convincingly shows that a well regulated Militia referred to every able-bodied man aged 16-60 having a properly working firearm and being trained in its use and ready in a moment's notice to use it should the call be made.

In his article Can the Government force you to eat broccoli, Judge Andrew Napolitano puts this argument to rest in its historical context.
"The language in the Commerce Clause authorizes Congress “to regulate” commerce among the states. When James Madison wrote that phrase, he and the other Framers were animated by the startling lack of interstate commerce among the states under the Articles of Confederation.  This was the period after the Revolution and before the Constitution when the merchants and bankers who financed the Revolution also controlled the state legislatures.  They were both creditors, because they had lent money to the state governments to finance the war, and debtors, because they now controlled the machinery of state government that owed them money.

What did they do? They were the original corporatists and crony capitalists.  They formed cartels to diminish in-state competition, and they imposed tariffs to discourage out-of-state competition.  Thus, in order to turn 13 mini-economies into one large economy, and to protect the freedom to trade, Madison used the word “regulate,” which to him and his colleagues meant “to keep regular.”  So, the Constitution delegated to Congress the constitutional power to keep interstate commerce regular by prohibiting state tariffs, and it did so."
Necessary and Proper

Can the federal government make any law that is "necessary and proper"?  Necessary and proper for what?  While I risk fighting a straw-man, I don't see a way to rebut this view other than by showing the context in which it is written.

At the end of Article 1, Section 8, after expressly delegating 17 powers to the Congress, it concludes by saying:
"To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Office thereof."
So tell me again, what laws does Congress have the authority to make?  "The laws necessary for executing the foregoing Powers."  Could that be referring to the 17 enumerated powers directly preceding, or foregoing, that clause?  Thomas Jefferson said that necessary meant necessary, not just convenient, for executing the foregoing powers, otherwise what is the point of enumerating powers if the government also has this blank check for any power it can conceive of?  Even Alexander Hamilton defended the necessary and proper clause against this very interpretation in Federalist No. 33, saying that it only clarified the proper means for executing the "certain specified powers" with "necessary and proper laws".

Given we have intellectual arch-enemies Jefferson and Hamilton agreeing on this, the last place we have to look for the federal government's mythical blank check is in the previously mentioned "implied powers" doctrine promoted by Hamilton.  To counter this, I've saved my best argument for last, the historical facts and the logical implications of the necessity for the 18th amendment.

The 18th amendment

While not as popular as the first 10 amendments, the 18th is worth quoting in full because it is the corner stone of the best argument I have for intellectually honesty through adopting a strict interpretation of the Constitution.
"Section 1. After one year from the ratification of this article the manufacture, sale, or transportation of intoxicating liquors within, the importation thereof into, or the exportation thereof from the United States and all territory subject to the jurisdiction thereof for beverage purposes is hereby prohibited.

Section 2. The Congress and the several States shall have concurrent power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

Section 3. This article shall be inoperative unless it shall have been ratified as an amendment to the Constitution by the legislatures of the several States, as provided in the Constitution, within seven years from the date of the submission hereof to the States by the Congress."
Why did the federal government amend the constitution in this way? Why does Section 2 grant Congress and the States the power to enforce this article by legislation? Why didn't they just pass legislation with the language of Section 1? Drumroll….. Because it would have been unconstitutional!

Remember, the 18th amendment was ratified in 1919 and went into effect in 1920.  This was long before the great depression and the onslaught of unconstitutional offices, departments, laws, and regulations that came with FDR packing the Supreme Court with judges sympathetic to his goals.  But the laws on the books in 1920 applied then as they do now.  Then, as now, the Constitution is the supreme law of the land, and any undelegated powers usurped by the federal government are unauthoritative, void, and have no force of law.  If the Constitution required that the federal government of 1920 required them to amend the Constitution to grant them the power to make alcohol illegal before they could execute legislation to that effect, then the same prerequisite applies today to any power not expressly delegated.

That being said, we must now come to the sad conclusion that Michael Badnarik first shocked me with many years ago:

Most of the things the federal government does are unconstitutional.

So what do we do about it?  I'm hoping to educate the American people to this disturbing fact so that we can reach a common baseline understanding before we can begin to have an open and honest debate about the direction our government is going and where we should go from here.

Before we should ask the question, "Should the government do X", we must take a queue from Dr. Ron Paul and first ask, "Is the government allowed to do X"?  If the answer is in the negative, then we should follow the rules and first amend the Constitution to grant the power before it can pass legislation to enforce it.

As President Washington said in his farewell address,
"If in the opinion of the People, the distribution of modification of the Constitutional powers be in any particular wrong, let it be corrected by an amendment in the way the Constitution designates.  But let there be no change by usurpation… the customary weapon by which free governments are destroyed."
Proposing the 28th Amendment

Using language similar to that found in the Constitution and its amendments, I am proud to unveil my proposed 28th amendment to the Constitution.  Anyone familiar with my views will know that I am adamantly against most of the powers I am proposing that we give the federal government, but I do this in the same spirit that Dr. Paul used when he introduced a bill to declare war and promptly voted against it.  His thinking went that if we're going to go to war, we might as well maintain the rule of law, declare war constitutionally, and hold our elected representatives accountable for the decision.  Similarly, if the federal government is going to usurp all of these undelegated powers outside of law, we might as well amend the constitution to give them the powers to do the things they are doing anyway, in order to restore the rule of law, re-open an intellectually honest debate, get an accurate assessment of how far we've fallen, and give all of us citizens fair warning of what is coming.


In the pursuance of intellectual honesty, it has been seen fit to amend the Constitution of the United States, the Supreme Law of the Land, such that the powers and responsibilities that have been usurped, as well as the powers and responsibilities that have been abandoned, relinquished, and renounced, shall be granted or transferred to the appropriate branch of government, be it the Legislative, Executive, or Judicial, such that the powers and responsibilities that have henceforth been exercised by the federal government of the United States, including its departments, administrations, agencies, and agents thereof, shall be made lawful and constitutional, while repealing certain articles of amendment to the Constitution that purport to restrict the federal government of the United States' lawful ability to infringe upon the rights of the people, in favor of an assignment of the privileges that may be bestowed or revoked to the people by their sovereign government.

Section 1. The Congress shall be granted the following powers, and the ability to enforce these powers by appropriate legislation:
  • To create an Army Corps of Engineers, which shall have full regulatory authority over the waterways, lakes, and marinas of United States and all territory subject to the jurisdiction thereof;
  • To create a Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms (ATF), and Explosives, which shall have full regulatory authority to declare any Arm, including, but not limited to, machineguns, short barrel shotguns, short barrel rifles, destructive devices, AOWs and silencers, illegal to possess, transport, manufacture, or sell;
  • To create a Bureau of Land Management (BLM), which shall have the authority to own, control, and manage land including, but not limited to, land suitable for oil, gas, and coal operations;
  • To create a Center for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), which shall have full regulatory authority concerning diseases, birth defects, environmental health, workplace safety and health, and vaccinations;
  • To create a Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), which shall have the responsibility of collecting, analyzing, and dissemination intelligence, as well as conducting clandestine operations in the United States and abroad, including, but not limited to the powers to engage in assassinations, government overthrows, arms and narcotic trafficking, and false-flag terrorism;
  • To create a Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC), which shall have full regulatory powers concerning commodity futures and option markets;
  • To create a Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB); which shall have full regulatory authority over banks, credit unions, and other financial corporations;
  • To create a Department of Agriculture, which shall have full regulatory authority over the possession, manufacture, transportation, packaging, labeling, and selling of food and beverages; the power to create a Welfare program for the distribution of Food Stamps; the power to subsidize public and private school lunch programs, and to determine the criteria of eligibility thereof;
  • To create a Department of Commerce, which shall have regulatory authority over areas of trade, economic development, technology, environmental stewardship, and sustainable development;
  • To create a Department of Education, which shall have full regulatory authority related to funding education, administering the distribution of funds, and enforcing discrimination laws, as well as the power to grant public loans, and to guarantee the backing of private loans for the purpose of education;
  • To create a Department of Energy, which shall have full regulatory authority to create rules and regulations governing the forms and manner that energy shall be manufactured, sold, or consumed for private or public purpose;
  • To create a Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS), which shall have the authority to engage in the business and activities of research, public health, food and drugs, and health insurance, including Medicare and Medicaid;
  • To create a Department of Homeland Security, which shall have full regulatory authority over the United States and all territory subject to the jurisdiction thereof concerning Counterterrorism, Border Security, Immigration, and Cybersecurity;
  • To create a Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), which shall have full regulatory authority concerning matters related to community planning and development, home owning, home buying, real estate transactions,
  • To create a Department of Labor, which shall have regulatory authority concerning matters including, but not limited to, the welfare of wage earners, job seekers, retirees, working conditions, advancement opportunities, and mandated work-related benefits and rights;
  • To create a Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA), which shall have full regulatory authority to declare any plant, chemical, or derivative substance illegal to possess, transport, manufacture, or sell;
  • To create a Farm Credit Administration (FCA), which shall have regulatory authority over banks, associations, and related entities of the Farm Credit System (FCS), which shall ensure compliance with the Farm Credit Act of 1971 and FCA regulations, and which shall administer loans and grants to individuals and corporations that may or may not be engaged in agriculture.
  • To create a Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), which shall have federal law enforcement power concerning the areas including, but not limited to, terrorism, foreign intelligence and espionage, cyber attacks and high-technology crimes, public corruption, civil rights, national criminal organizations, white-collar crime, and violent crime;
  • To create a Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC); with the power to insure and guarantee the checking and savings accounts of public and private banks, thrift institutions, and other financial corporations, as well as the power to enforce compliance with consumer protection laws, including, but not limited to, the Fair Credit Billing Act, the Fair Credit Reporting Act, the Truth-In-Lending Act, the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, and the Community Reinvestment Act;
  • To create a Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), which shall have full regulatory, enforcement, planning, and management authority concerning any natural, man made, or economic hazard, including, but not limited to, terrorism, earthquakes, tornados, hurricanes, floods, fires, and hazardous spills
  • To create a Federal Trade Commission (FTC), which shall have full regulatory and enforcement authority to regulate all trade and business if such can be perceived to concern consumer protection and competition, fraud, deception, mergers, acquisitions, or unfair business practices including charging too much, charging too little, or colluding with other businesses to charge the same amount for a good or service;
  • To create a General Services Administration (GSA), which shall have full regulatory authority including, but not limited to, Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR), Federal Management Regulation and Federal Travel Regulation (FTR);
  • To create a National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), which shall have the responsibilities concerning technology related to air and space, including, but not limited to Aeronautics, Human Exploration and Operations, and the exploration of the solar system;
  • To create a National Institute of Health (NIH), which shall fund medical research in universities and research institutions;
  • To create a National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), which shall have non-regulatory powers to promote innovation and industrial competitiveness, and advance measurement science, standards, and technologies;
  • To create a National Railroad Passenger Corporation (AMTRAK), which shall have the power to engage in the business of transportation via trains and light rail;
  • To create a National Weather Service, which shall provide weather, hydrologic, and climate forecasts and warnings for the United States, its territories, adjacent waters and ocean areas;
  • To create a National Security Agency (NSA), which shall have the power to clandestinely collect, process, analyze, produce, and disseminate signals intelligence information, of both foreign and domestic origin, as well as having full regulatory authority of security regulations covering operating practices, and the transmission, handling, and distribution of signals intelligence and communications;
  • To create a Nuclear Regulatory Commission, which shall have full regulatory authority governing nuclear reactor and nuclear material safety, issue orders to licensees, and adjudicate legal matters;
  • To create a Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), which shall have full regulatory power concerning securities being offered for public sale, corporate reporting, proxy solicitations, tender offers, insider trading, and registration of exchanges, associations, brokers, dealers, transfer agents, and clearing agencies, as well as enforcement power of laws governing the securities industry including, but not limited to, the Securities Act of 1933, the Securities Act of 1934, the Trust Indenture Act of 1939, the Investment Company Act of 1940, the Investment Advisers Act of 1940, the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (SOX), and the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act of 2010;
  • To create a Social Security Administration (SSA), which shall have the power to lay direct taxes on income, as well as the power to give money to persons based on age, wealth, and disability; -And
  • To create a Transportation Security Administration (TSA), which shall full regulatory authority over all the airports of United States and all territory subject to the jurisdiction thereof, including the right to sexually assault patrons of said airports, and the authority to shut down any air traffic to an airport that refuses to comply with said Administration.
Section 2. The Congress shall renounce their power to coin money, and shall be granted the power to delegate this responsibility, as well as the power to create paper and electronic fiat money, to a private central bank, which shall be the Federal Reserve Bank.

Section 3. The Congress shall renounce their power to declare War, and shall be granted the power to delegate this responsibility to the President of the United States of America.

Section 4. The House of Representatives shall renounce their power to originate all bills for raising revenue, and the Senate shall be granted the power to concurrently originate such bills.

Section 5. The Congress shall renounce their sole ownership of the power to legislate, and the President of the United States of America shall be granted the concurrent power to legislate through Presidential Signing Statements.

Section 6. The first article of amendment to the Constitution of the United States is hereby repealed, in pursuance of granting the Congress the following powers, and the ability to enforce these powers by appropriate legislation;
  • To regulate religious institutions through the formation of 501c3 corporations;
  • To create "free-speech zones", to grant the privilege of speech, and to repeal said privilege;
  • To regulate the Press, particularly concerning, but not limited to, matters related to national security; -And
  • To arrest the people for peaceably assembling, including, but not limited to, when such assembly shall coincide with a national or international meeting such as NATO, the UN, the World Bank, the CFR, the Trilateral Commission, and the Bilderberg group.
Section 7. The second article of amendment to the Constitution of the United States is hereby repealed, in pursuance of granting the Congress the following powers, and the ability to enforce these powers by appropriate legislation;
  • To grant and revoke the privilege of keeping and bearing Arms based on criminal record, education, medical history, or any other qualification deemed proper; -And
  • To prohibit the possession, manufacture, importation, transportation, or sale of Arms, including, but not limited to, machineguns, short barrel shotguns, short barrel rifles, destructive devices, AOWs and silencers.
Section 8. The fourth article of amendment to the Constitution of the United States is hereby repealed, in pursuance of granting the Congress the following powers, and the ability to enforce these powers by appropriate legislation;
  • To search and seize any person, house, paper, and effect, for any reason that any agent of the Federal government shall believe to be reasonable; -And
  • To monitor, intercept, and record all electronic communications.
Section 9. The fifth article of amendment to the Constitution of the United States is hereby repealed, in pursuance of granting the Congress the following powers, and the ability to enforce these powers by appropriate legislation;
  • To hold any person, including American citizens, indefinitely, without the benefit of any trial, for any reason;
  • To grant the President the power to order the assassination of any person, including American citizens, for any reason;
  • To take private property without just compensation for private or public use under the authority of eminent domain; -And
  • To confiscate the private property of a person that is charged with a crime, including the freezing of bank accounts.
Section10. The sixth article of amendment to the Constitution of the United States is hereby repealed, in pursuance of granting the Congress the following powers, and the ability to enforce these powers by appropriate legislation;
  • To charge a person with a crime without being informed of the nature and cause of the accusation, and to be charged by secret witnesses, including, but not limited to, accusations involving national security; -And
  • To be deny a person charged with a crime the privileges of obtaining witnesses in his favor, a public trial, and an impartial jury, including, but not limited to, crimes involving national security.
Section 11. The seventh article of amendment to the Constitution of the United States is hereby repealed, in pursuance of granting the Congress the following powers, and the ability to enforce these powers by appropriate legislation;
  • To deny the privilege of trial by jury, including, but not limited to, charges involving traffic violations, family courts, and other administrative misdemeanors and felonies.
Section 12. The eighth article of amendment to the Constitution of the United States is hereby repealed, in pursuance of granting the Congress the following powers, and the ability to enforce these powers by appropriate legislation;
  • To impose excessive bail and fines, including, but not limited to, hundreds of thousands or millions of dollars; -And
  • To inflict cruel and unusual punishments, including, but not limited to, enhanced interrogation techniques such as water-boarding, sexual torture, and the technique known as "Diesel Therapy", whereby a prisoner is shackled at the feet and handcuffed at the wrists, reinforced with a box-like structure which stiffens the chains and locks the wrists at a 90-degree angle, whereby the handcuffs are connected to a waist chain that is connected to another chain which connects the shackles, which pinch the nerves and restrict the flow of blood causing severe pain and swelling, often resulting in damage to the feet, as toenails under pressure from blood-blisters become infected and deformed, requiring surgery or the pulling of the nails out by the roots, whereby the prisoner will be transported from bus to bus and onto plane after plane, being shuttled from one prison to another, for weeks on end, 20 hours per day in chains.
Section 13. The ninth article of amendment to the Constitution of the United States is hereby repealed, in pursuance of granting the Congress the following powers, and the ability to enforce these powers by appropriate legislation;
  • To grant all administrative rights to the federal government of the United States, including its departments, administrations, agencies, and agents thereof, whereby privileges will be granted and revoked to the people, at the full discretion of any agent of the United States.
Section 14. The tenth article of amendment to the Constitution of the United States is hereby repealed, in pursuance of granting the Congress the following powers, and the ability to enforce these powers by appropriate legislation;
  • To grant all powers delegated, implied, or conceivable imagined to the federal government of the United States, including its departments, administrations, agencies, and agents thereof.
Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...