Ron: More on the Freeman v Strawman situation in the US
PEOPLE or CITIZEN
WHICH ONE ARE YOU?
PEOPLE
The Preamble does not specifically
define the word "People." Nevertheless, the definition becomes apparent
in the context of the other words and prior history.
HISTORY
Before the United States
existed, there was no legal government. A group of representatives,
acting "in the name and by the authority of the good people of these
colonies," declared the independence of the colonies from the British
Crown and the state of Great Britain.
From the beginning, in
the 1776 Declaration of Independence, the people were acknowledged as
the source of authority, i.e. the sovereignty which authorized the
Declaration of Independence.
Next came the 1778
Articles of Confederation. The states that existed by the authority of
the people, created those Articles while in Congress assembled. That
didn't work as well as expected.
In 1787 the people
themselves came forth "to ordain and establish this Constitution for
the United States of America" [see Preamble]. On September 17th, 1787,
the states held a convention and all those present unanimously joined
in. [see last paragraph of U.S. Constitution]
So, in 1787, unanimous concurrence was achieved and the Constitution was born, later to be ratified.
PREAMBLE
"We the People of the
United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish
Justice, insure domestic Tranquillity, provide for the common defense,
promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to
ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution
for the United States of America."
STRUCTURE OF PREAMBLE
TRUSTOR: We the People [trustors]
VENUE: of the United States
PURPOSE: in Order to form
a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquillity,
provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure
the Blessings of Liberty
BENEFICIARY: to ourselves and our Posterity,
ENABLING ACTION 1: do ordain [declare the law]
ENABLING ACTION 2: and establish [bring into existence]
WHAT: this Constitution [articles of incorporation for trust]
TRUSTEE: for the United States of America. [trustee]
ANALYSIS OF PREAMBLE
The Preamble defines the context
in which the remainder of the Constitution must be interpreted. Most of
it is self explanatory. Here's an explanation that points to popular
sovereignty:
After the Declaration of
Independence, but before the ordainment and establishment of the
Constitution, the people of the United States pretty much handled their
own affairs using the common law. They were not subject to any higher
authority other than the authority of the common law as administered by
the people themselves (self governance). Although the states did exist,
they only existed by the authority of the people. Every man was a king,
and every woman a queen--and none had any subjects. Upon declaring our
independence, we all became sovereigns and members of the peerage
(nobility).
"The people of this State, as the
successors of its former sovereign, are entitled to all the rights
which formerly belonged to the King by his prerogative. Through the
medium of their Legislature they may exercise all the powers which
previous to the Revolution could have been exercised either by the King
alone, or by him in conjunction with his Parliament; subject only to
those restrictions which have been imposed by the Constitution of this
State or of the U.S."
Lansing v. Smith, 21 D. 89., 4 Wendel 9 (1829) (New York)
"D." = Decennial Digest
Lansing v. Smith, 4 Wend. 9 (N.Y.) (1829), 21 Am.Dec. 89
10C Const. Law Sec. 298; 18 C Em.Dom. Sec. 3, 228;
37 C Nav.Wat. Sec. 219; Nuls Sec. 1`67; 48 C Wharves Sec. 3, 7.
NOTE: Am.Dec.=American Decision, Wend. = Wendell (N.Y.)
The enabling actions in the
Preamble are significant because there is simply nothing in the use of
those words to imply that the People relinquished any of their own
power and authority. The People declared the law (ordain) without
taking away from themselves the authority to declare law again in the
future. The People established the Constitution without taking away
from themselves the authority to establish anything else in the future.
In other words, the people gave birth to the Constitution without
giving up any of their own power and authority.
What was before, continues to be so today.
From the context of the Preamble,
one may conclude that the laws of the United States do not apply to
People. The People, as ordainers and establishers of the country are
sovereigns of the country, may not be involuntarily subjected to the
laws of the United States.
Because of Amendment X ("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," the government has no authority, and
cannot assume any authority over the People. Government powers may not
reach beyond that which is constitutionally granted. In order for the
government to subject People to its law it is necessary for the People
to relinquish their sovereignty. Sovereignty is a natural right which
cannot lawfully be relinquished involuntarily. Any removal of
sovereignty must be accomplished voluntarily by the subject himself.
DEFINITION OF CITIZEN OF THE UNITED STATES
HISTORY
Before ratification of the
Amendment XIV , there was no legal definition of the term "citizen of
the United States." The term was used, but only generally. After the
Civil War the slaves were freed but there was no legal basis to
recognize them as having any rights. Amendment XIV partially solved
that problem.
"Free the slaves," was the
rallying cry combined with the Civil War that resulted in Amendment
XIV. Amendment XIV created a new class of person called "citizen of the
United States." Any ex-slave could now claim citizenship, and, by the
way, so could any of the People if they so chose to do. Amendment XIV
made possible the voluntary relinquishment of personal sovereignty.
It was also during the mid 1800's
that the various governments took control of the school systems. The
curriculum shifted from civics (the study of natural rights and common
law) to American government (the study of civil privileges and
statutory law). Emphasis was also refocused on "good citizenship". To
blunt the people's perception, the civil privileges were called civil
rights. The transition from teaching "natural rights" to teaching
"civil rights" took about 100 years (from the 1850's to the 1950's).
During the 1950's the school systems changed the courses named from
"Civics" to "American Government." Hardly anyone now is aware of the
subject of civics as a school course.
The phrase, "citizens of the United States," is defined in the Constitution for the United States of America, Amendment XIV:
AMENDMENT XIV
Section 1. "All persons born or
naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction
thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein
they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge
the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor
shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property,
without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its
jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."
Section 5. "The Congress shall have the power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article."
STRUCTURE OF AMENDMENT XIV
WHO: All persons
QUALIFICATION:
(A) born or naturalized in the United States, and
(B) subject to the jurisdiction thereof
PURPOSE: No State shall make or
enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of
citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person
of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to
any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."
ENFORCED BY: The Congress
ENFORCEMENT METHOD: Legislation
QUALITATIVE ANALYSIS OF AMENDMENT XIV
As discussed above, the People
are sovereign. The People are not subject to the jurisdiction of the
federal government, even though they are born in the United States.
Amendment XIV inverts the
relationship. One of the qualifications to be a citizen of the United
States is that one must be born or naturalized in the United States.
Another qualification is that one must be, "subject to the jurisdiction
thereof." It is not possible to be a citizen of the United States
without being born or naturalized in the United States and
subject to the jurisdiction thereof. But, if you are born or
naturalized, and if you are subject to the jurisdiction, then you
automatically qualify as a citizen of the United States.
From the point of view of the
federal enforcers, the qualifications are worked in reverse. They
reverse-interpret Amendment XIV as saying that if you say you are a
citizen of the United States, then that automatically means you are
totally subject to its jurisdiction [and have been born or
naturalized]. This opinion is not shared by the judicial branch. See 14
C.J.S. 426, 430:
The particular meaning of the word "citizen" is frequently dependent on the
context in which it is found[25], and the word must always be taken in the
sense which best harmonizes with the subject matter in which it is used[26].
"One may be considered a citizen for some purposes and not a citizen for
other purposes, as, for instance, for commercial purposes, and not for
political purposes[27]. So, a person may be a citizen in the sense that as
such he is entitled to the protection of his life, liberty, and property,
even though he is not vested with the suffrage or other political rights[28].
"[25] Cal.--Prowd v. Gore, 2 Dist. 207 P. 490. 57 C.A. 458.
[26] Cal.--Prowd v. Gore. 2 Dist. 207 P. 490. 57 C.A. 458.
La.--Lepenser v Griffin, 83 So. 839, 146 La. 584
N.Y.--Union Hotel Co. v. Hersee, 79 N.Y. 454
[27] U.S.--The Friendschaft, N.C., 16 U.S. 14, 3 Wheat. 14, 4 L.Ed. 322
--Murray v. The Charming Betsy, 6 U.S. 64, 2 Cranch 64, 2 L.Ed. 208
Md.--Risewick v. Davis, 19 Md. 82
Mass.--Judd v. Lawrence, 1 Cush 531
R.I.--Greeough v. Tiverton Police Com'rs, 74 A 785, 30 R.I. 212
[28] Mass.--Dillaway v. Burton, 153 N.E. 13, 256 Mass. 568"
In any case, if you fail to object to
the government's view of citizenship, then you will most certainly be
subjected to the laws of the government. That means no rights, only
privileges. To see a list of privileges granted or denied to the
citizens (there is no list for the People's natural rights because the
People automatically have all rights), see People's rights vs citizen's rights
ONE OF THE PEOPLE OR ONE OF THE CITIZENS?
The first issue to be resolved
in any court proceeding is that of jurisdiction. Does the one entity
have jurisdiction over the other entity? One should never go into court
without a clear understanding as to whether he is there as a citizen,
or there as one of the people.
If you claim you are a citizen of
the United States, then it is strongly implied (though not necessarily
true) that you are subject to the laws of the United States. On the
other hand, if you are one of the People, then it is legally implied
that you are a legal king, with a sovereignty superior to that of the
United States, and subject only to the common law of the other kings
(your peers). In short: the People are superior to the government, the
government is superior to the citizens. That is the hierarchy.
PEOPLE ---> GOVERNMENT ---> CITIZENS
As a king you "are entitled to all
the rights which formerly belonged to the King by his prerogative." You
can do what you want to do when you want to do it. You have your own
property and your own courts. There is no limit as to what you may do
other than the natural limits of the universe, and the sovereignty of a
fellow sovereign. You should treat the other sovereign in accordance
with the Golden Rule, and at the very least must never harm him. Your
sovereignty stops where the other sovereignty begins. You are one of
the owners of the American government, and it is their promise that
they will support your sovereignty (i.e. they have promised to support
the Constitution and protect it from all enemies). You have no
allegiance to anyone. The government, your only [public] servant, has
an allegiance to you.
As a citizen, you are only
entitled to whatever your sovereign grants to you. You have no rights.
If you wish to do something that would be otherwise illegal, you must
apply for a license giving you special permission. If there is no
license available, and if there is no specific permission granted in
the statutes, then you must apply for special permission or a waiver in
order to do it. Your only allegiance is to your sovereign (the
government), and that allegiance is mandated by your sovereign's law
(the government, though not absolutely sovereign, is sovereign relative
to you if you claim to be a citizen of the sovereign).
Here is a typical example:
As one of the People you have a
right to travel, unrestricted, upon the public highways. You have right
to carry guests with you in your automobile. You have a right to own a
gun and that right shall not be impaired by your servant, the
government. You have a right to a grand jury indictment and a trial by
jury, that is a trial directly by the people, not the government.
As one of the citizens, you may
not travel by automobile unless you are either a licensed motor vehicle
driver, or you are a passenger with permission to be on board. Gun
ownership is a privilege subject to definition and regulation. You do
not have a right to a jury trial in all cases, and no right to grand
jury indictment--a trial is a trial by the government, not the people.
http://1215.org/lawnotes/lawnotes/pvc.htm
Found at:
http://www.rumormillnews.com/cgi-bin/forum.cgi?read=154302
*******************************
