The Establishment Clause
I am glad the discussion of the U.S. constitution is finally swinging back to states rights and hopefully later for inhabitants.
The law works as such, the oldest law prevails. Later amendments can never abrogate the intent of earlier documents, they harmonize with them. Rights are unalienable, they cannot be taken away by the states or the federal government. They are self-evident and god-given, America founded by protestants incorporated the idea of Martin Luther that there is no higher law than one’s own conscience. Privileges are state granted and hence revoke-able; they are contingent on receiving a privilege from the state. An example would be a postal worker, he is granted a job by the federal government and as such is under the rules of that institution. The federal government operates under Roman-Civil law or Admiralty- the laws of seizure. The states are supposed to operate under the common law. The U.S. constitution is grounded in the common law. The UNITED STATES is only the territories of the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, ect. The laws written by congress only apply to their jurisdiction, yes this includes tax laws.
The problem herein lies with the 14th amendment. After the Civil War, the supreme court interpreted the meaning of persons as corporations. Persons at that time were only slaves. The 14th amendment did not restrict any of the rights of inhabitants, it could not it would have been struck down as unconstitutional. What it did do was create a secondary class of citizenship known as a UNITED STATES CITIZEN. It was a privilege granted to blacks, that was revoke-able, it established a power base for the Whigs/Republican party after the Civil War. There was no new power granted to restrict the rights of inhabitants, it just transferred ownership of the slaves to the federal government,.. war booty.
1933 rolls around and the U.S. Government is declared bankrupt, the gold standard is removed and the free Americans become debtors, slaves again.The power to regulate persons hangs on a small thread known as the interstate commerce clause; the ability to regulate trade between the sovereign nation-states. Eventually the UCC is constructed regulating the privileges of persons but still not inhabitants. The unrestricted right to travel becomes a privilege. Alloidal titles- the rights to the land are removed and one begins to pay property tax to the state for the use of their land. However all statutory law has been harmonized with the U.S. Constitution by providing a remedy and recourse, in other words it is voluntary. An inhabitant with knowledge of the law can remove himself from statutory regulation. An inhabitant is still not subject to the laws of the UNITED STATES, he/she is sovereign and is the source of all power of the State.
“Without Prejudice”
Inhabitant
Kevin C. Kevin@uscivilflags.org
P.S. I will close with a quote from Justice Scalia from Yahoo. I normally would never agree with him but here me makes some sense.
“If we’re picking people to draw out of their own conscience and experience a ‘new’ Constitution, we should not look principally for good lawyers. We should look to people who agree with us,” he said, explaining that’s why senators increasingly probe nominees for their personal views on positions such as abortion.
“When we are in that mode, you realize we have rendered the Constitution useless,” Scalia said.