Interesting

When did GB acknowledge the USA as sovereign state?

When did GB acknowledge the USA as sovereign state?


We are searching data for your request:

Forums and discussions:
Manuals and reference books:
Data from registers:
Wait the end of the search in all databases.
Upon completion, a link will appear to access the found materials.

In which year did Great Britain acknowledge the independence of the USA and threat it like a sovereign country?


In 1783.

Specifically, with the signing of the Treaty of Paris on 3 September 1783.

Interestingly, as the Wikipedia article notes, Article 1 of the treaty, in which King George III acknowledged the United States' existence as "free sovereign and independent states", is the only part of the treaty that remains in force.


A History of United States Policy Towards Haiti

Over the past two hundred years, the United States has played a important role in the economic and political activity of Haiti, its close neighbor to the south. The United States’ refusal to recognize Haiti as a country for sixty years, trade policies, military occupations, and role in Jean-Bertrand Aristide’s removal from Haiti are little known by Americans, but significant for the development, or rather, lack of development in Haiti. Haiti is the poorest nation in the Western Hemisphere, and has economic and health statistics comparable to those in Sub-Saharan Africa. A major factor in analyzing the state of Haiti today is its relationship with the United States both now and throughout history.

Haitian Independence, American Silence

Haiti declared its independence from France on January 1 st , 1804. From 1791 to 1804, the slaves of Haiti, then known as the French colony Saint-Domingue, fought off their French slave owners. France fought to hold on to Haiti, as it was their wealthiest colony, exporting sugar, indigo, and coffee. In 1804, under the leadership of Toussaint L’Ouverture, they succeeded in throwing off their colonial power. The Haitian Revolution marked a significant event in history. Haiti became the first modern state to abolish slavery, the first state in the world to be formed from a successful revolt of the lower classes (in this case slaves), and the second republic in the Western Hemisphere, only twenty-eight years behind the United States (Reinhardt 247).

Despite this landmark event, the United States did little to respond to the Haitian Revolution. In fact, its silence is very telling: it was frightened because the Haitian Revolution threatened its economic interests. Southern plantation owners, fearful of revolts from their own slaves, worked to prevent their slaves from learning of the Haitian Revolution. They also pressured the United States government to refuse to recognize Haitian independence, which it did until 1862, after Southern states seceded from the Union.

Some argue that beyond economic motives, Americans did not acknowledge the Haitian Revolution because they simply could not understand it. The concept of slaves overthrowing their French masters and ruling themselves in a nation was not only threatening, it was unthinkable, “ a revolution by Blacks definitely was something that could not be” (Reinhardt 250).

While the United States refused to diplomatically recognize Haiti, it continued trade relations with the new nation. Prior to the revolution, the United States was a large trade partner with Haiti, second only to its colonial power, France. Throughout the 19 th century, the United States continued to import Haitian agricultural products and export its own goods to Haiti, with unfavorable trade policies for Haitians. In fact, by the mid-19 th century the United States exported more goods to Haiti than to any other country in Latin America (Farmer 51). During the 19 th century, its first century as a nation, Haiti was heavily burdened and its development stuck it was forced to repay France in order to receive diplomatic recognition, and was diplomatically isolated from all other major powers (see Plummer 1992).

The Haitian Revolution was a significant event in the history of the Caribbean, Western Hemisphere, and world. However, Haitian Independence was not recognized by the United States at the time, to the detriment of the country, and is still left out of popular knowledge of the time period. The writers of history are those in power, as is clear in the case of the historiography of the Haitian Revolution (Trouillot 29).

Military Occupation, 1915-1934

In 1915, the United States Marine Corps invaded Haiti, and remained in the country for almost twenty years. Nominally there to keep peace within the country (there had been six presidents and untold violence during the prior five years), the military played an important role in re-shaping the country’s government and in forming their national army. That national army is infamous today for its undemocratic coups and violations of human rights.

The military occupation also provided an opportunity for the United States to strengthen its economic ties with the country. Since the late 19 th century and early 20 th century, the United States attempted to revitalize mercantilism in the Caribbean, with a large focus on Haiti (Plummer 12). This trade had devastating effects on Haiti, as Haiti models how “foreign trade… can foster socioeconomic decline” (Plummer 40).

Political Turmoil in the 1990s and early 2000s

In December 1990, Haiti completed its first democratic elections, after violence surrounding prior elections caused them to be aborted. Jean-Bertrand Aristide, a Catholic priest with tremendous support from the black poor of the country, was elected with 67% of the vote, and took office on February 7 th 1991. On September 29 th 1991, the Haitian military removed him from office and forced him to sign a resignation. He spent the next three years in exile, returning in 1994 and serving out his term until February 1996 (see Farmer 2006). During the time of his exile, the country was in chaos, and its next political elections were not approved by international election commissions. The U.S. military occupied Haiti from 1994-1997 in order to “establish peace” and “restore democracy” (see Ballard 1998).

In 2000, Aristide won another presidential election, garnering over 92% of the votes. The next several years saw violence and political agitation in Haiti. On February 28 th , 2004, Aristide was taken from the country by the Haitian and American militaries and flown to South Africa, where he is still in exile (see Farmer 2006).

The United States’ role in both the coups against Aristide have been disputed. Aristide, among others (ex. Farmer 2006), claim the United States was directly involved in his forced removal from the country in 2004. The Haitian military and the Haitian National Intelligence Service, set up and funded by the CIA in the 1980s, were both key players in the coups against Aristide.

Haiti holds many records: the poorest nation in the Western Hemisphere and the first nation of former slaves, for example. Another is the highest per-capita rate of NGOs than any other nation. Haiti is desperately poor and has horrible health statistics, so in some ways it makes sense that many non-Haitians, especially Americans given its proximity, work in NGOs in the country. The benefits and harms of the large numbers of foreign NGOs within the country are examined in scholarly literature (see Schuller 2007, for example). One of the major drawbacks to the work of NGOs within the country is the vast majority of them work outside of the government, and most are not even registered with the government. By bypassing the state, NGOs weaken it American money, both from the federal government and from individuals, flows to NGOs and not, in general, the Haitian government, making it even harder for the state to function.

An additional form of foreign aid has been food aid given by the federal government to Haiti. This food aid, heavily subsidized by the U.S. federal government so that it benefits American farmers, has flooded the Haitian markets, driving prices down. This, along with environmental degradation, has forced many Haitian farmers to give up their farms and move to Port-au-Prince and its surrounding slums.

The Future of U.S.-Haitian Relations

A recent publication by the Brookings Institution with recommendations for the Obama administration on its policy towards Latin America stressed that the United States should be involved in facilitating elections and strengthening Parliament and political parties in Haiti (The Obama Administration and the Americas 107). Because of the recent devastating earthquake, priorities have certainly shifted from strengthening political institutions to providing for immediate physical needs and building up infrastructure. With recent discussion in the Senate about Haiti becoming “some sort of receivorship” (Senator Dodd) or “something far more draconian” (Senator Corker), it is clear that Haiti and the United States will continue to be politically and economically tied (MacFarquahar 1).

Note: These sources provided background information for this paper, and though not all are directly cited, all are important scholarship and primary source in understanding the topic.

Ballard, John R. Upholding Democracy: The United States Military Campaign in Haiti, 1994- 1997. London: Praeger, 1998. || A description of the military campaign in Haiti in the mid-90s from the view of the U.S. military.

Farmer, Paul. The Uses of Haiti. Maine: Common Courage Press, 2006. || A stinging condemnation of U.S. policy towards Haiti from a physician-anthropologist who has worked in the country for thirty years provides a self-proclaimed Haitian version of the relationship between the two countries.

Greene Balch, Emily, editor. Occupied Haiti. New York: The Writers Publishing Company, 1927. || A report of the conditions under the U.S. occupation of Haiti.

MacFarquahar, Neil. “Haiti is Again a Canvas for Approaches to Aid.” The New York Times. 30 Jan. 2010. || A current article about foreign aid to post-earthquake Haiti, incorporating dicussions at the United Nations and U.S. Congress.

McCrocklin, James H. Garde’Haiti: Twenty Years of Organization and Training by the United States Marine Corps. Annapolis, Maryland: Naval Institute, 1956 || An original Marine Corps document describing the United States’ military’s formative role in the development of the now infamous Haitian National Army.

Montague, Ludwell Lee. Haiti and the United States, 1714-1938. Durham, NC, Duke U. Press, 1940. || A comprehensive history of United States-Haitian relations through the occupation.

Plummer, Brenda Gayle. Haiti and the United States: The Psychological Moment. Athens: The University of Georgia Press, 1992. || Examines the intertwining history of the two countries and the impact of the U.S. on Haiti’s poor development outcomes.

—. Haiti and the Great Powers, 1902-1915. Baton Rouge: Louisiana State University Press, 1988. || Examines the trade relations between Haiti and the United States, and other foreign powers, during the turn of the 19 th century.

Reinhardt, Thomas. “200 Years of Forgetting: Hushing up the Haitian Revolution.” Journal of Black Studies 35 (2005): 246-261. || An article examining the historiography of the Haitian Revolution in the United States.

Schmidt, Hans. The United States Occupation of Haiti, 1915-1934. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers U Press, 1971. || A stinging condemnation at the occupation using Marine Corps documents.
Schuller, Mark. Invasion or Infusion? Understanding the Role of NGOs in Contemporary Haiti. The Journal of Haitian Studies, Vol. 13 No. 2 2007. || An important article examining the influence of NGOs on Haitian cultural, political, and economic autonomy.

The Obama Administration and the Americas. Washington, D.C.: Brookings Institution Press, 2009. || Recommendations for the Obama Administration on their policy towards Latin America, including Haiti.

Trouillot, Michel-Rolph. Silencing the Past: Power and the Production of History. Boston: Beacon Press, 1995. || A historiography of the Haitian Revolution, using the silencing of this event along with the attempts by German neo-Nazis to cover up the Holocaust, as a gateway into examining the processes by which the powerful produce history.

Sponsored by
Center for Latin American and Caribbean Studies
Brown University, Box 1866
Providence, RI USA 02912
Tel.: (401) 863-2106

History Department
Brown University, Box N
Providence, RI USA 02912
Tel.: (401) 863-2131

Developed & hosted by
Brown University Library
Providence, RI 02912
Tel.: (401) 863-2165


Are States Sovereign in America?

Reading through many postings I kept seeing recurring themes of disobedience, division, and a movement bent on secession and civil war. It became obvious that despite many Internet political readers being more rooted in our history there is a representative voice echoing the belief of a large number of citizens. Sparking the discussion were legislatures in Arizona, New Hampshire, Washington, and Oklahoma introducing a general warning the 10 th Amendment still applies. (In June of 2008 Oklahoma actually passed the legislation by a 92 to 3 margin while most of us slept.) Montana and Missouri are two examples of specific claims under the 10 th Amendment with their focus on firearms and abortion.

There should be no surprise by those who believe this is a good movement others see it as a bad movement. In our lifetime states have not appeared to be sovereign nations unto themselves but merely a sub-category of government between the federal and city levels. Just as many believe we are a democracy the way history is taught combined with the changes we've instituted through Constitutional amendments and Supreme Court rulings it is easy to understand why opponents to this movement are confused.

The 16 th Amendment created a system where the federal powers took money directly from the people and a funneling back to states began to occur. The 17 th Amendment stripped the Legislative Branch from a true bicameral system of a Senate representing the states and a House representing the people to the facade of bicameralism as both chambers now represented the people. Even further back were the 14th Amendment alterations weakening the states sovereignty. Supreme Court cases over the past 60 years have given little credence to the 10 th Amendment. However, we must remember the Supreme Court has given little credence to any of the founding principles since the 1930s. (For an analysis of SCOTUS assault read “The Constitution in Exile” or “Who Killed the Constitution.”) When we consider Constitutional Law classes in our country focus more on modern events than any attempt to first embrace the original intent of those founding the United States of America it is easier to understand the confusion over the sovereignty question.

Combine this with what many mayors across the country asked President Obama to do this past week and we cannot blame any citizen for believing we are one nation and states are merely a sub-category. Articulated during news appearances by Los Angeles Mayor Villaraigosa, the mayors traveling to Washington D.C. did so to encourage the Stimulus Bill's quick passage and funds for cities are sent directly to the city without being filtered through the states. When mayors bypass governors while citizen watch without batting an eye who is to believe states are sovereign?

We've had this debate before when Federalist supporters (those actually wanting one nation) clashed ideologically with Anti-Federalists (those wanting recognition of states as sovereign nations). Would it surprise you to learn states, in the language of the day, were considered nations rather than a sub-category within a nation? In the Treaty of Paris King George III did not recognize one independent nation but 13 sovereign nations. According to Dr. Kevin Gutzman, “[b]ut sovereignty lay in the states. That was the first principle of American government.” (Politically Incorrect Guide to the Constitution, p. 16) When this was last debated the words of the 10 th Amendment were crafted to protect the power and sovereignty in the states as the Anti-Federalist clearly understood the tyrannical nature of a single, federal level control.

Are we to clearly abandon, once and for all, the key principles that helped in making us a great United States of America? Many of us have grown to accept two very dangerous ideas already. As this recent movement points out too many believe states are not now, nor should they be, sovereign. Also, as we will discuss in another article, too many believe we are a democracy. As keystones for securing our grand experiment are abandoned we crumble. Pause long enough to study our history and attempt to clearly understand your beliefs so you more clearly understand the direction you support.

Remember our history, not our modern traditions that are moving us toward representative democracy. Here is some recommended reading to help begin the stirring of our memory. Study these with friends and family as if you were studying the scriptures of your religion or the stats of your favorite sports team.

1828 Webster's Dictionary (learn the language of the founders)

Thanks for taking the time to visit Nolan Chart. Do come back often and share the articles with others.

The most important thing we can all restore is conversation regarding politics.

Columnist, radio show host, and co-founder of Hear My Thunder.

1828 Webster's Dictionary (learn the language of the founders)

  • Globalists expose climate risk to children amid Paris debacle - June 9, 2017
  • US surgeon general continues government attack on vaping in new report - December 8, 2016
  • We know Clinton crimes exist - October 19, 2016
  • Are we totally insane when it comes to racial divisions? - October 9, 2016
  • FDA tells federal court no need to sift through facts on vaping - August 25, 2016
  • Supreme Court nomination by Obama is constitutional - February 18, 2016
  • Another Day Gun Control Fails - February 13, 2016
  • Saving our children with lies and fears - October 30, 2015
  • Land of the less free - September 8, 2015
  • Government supports vaping to quit smoking - August 19, 2015
  • Controlling presidential debates - August 13, 2015
  • Federal bureaucracy beyond the 2016 elections - August 9, 2015
  • Democratic socialism is flourishing - August 1, 2015
  • Sun sets on personal liberty - July 22, 2015
  • As a veteran I am tired - May 19, 2015
  • Limited government breeds success - May 18, 2015
  • Will the Texas governor sign myth into law - May 14, 2015
  • Grocery stores must age restrict produce sections in Texas - March 10, 2015
  • Fear leading to bans on vaping products could kill smokers - March 6, 2015
  • Health benefits of nicotine rise as laws clamp down - March 3, 2015
  • It's Not About Hunting - January 18, 2013
  • Root Cause of America's Legislative Failures - February 24, 2012
  • Intervention is a really sound policy - December 23, 2011
  • The Sum of Good Government - December 22, 2011
  • Overcome your fear of a constitutional convention - February 9, 2011
  • The Repeal Amendment is Not an Answer - December 3, 2010
  • Power positioning beyond our vote - November 11, 2010
  • Are you armed and ready to combat bad government? - July 26, 2010
  • State nullification trumps federal supremacy - July 1, 2010
  • Illegal aliens are not a race - June 25, 2010
  • Senate campaign tears at grassroots - June 21, 2010
  • A 2010 wave of Congressional freshmen - May 22, 2010
  • Getting the right gang numbers in D.C. - April 23, 2010
  • Paternalism in our federal government today - March 26, 2010
  • Obama’s health care campaign sells bad medicine - March 11, 2010
  • Race to the Top of education a loss for all - March 4, 2010
  • 10th Amendment goal is federalism and not states’ rights - March 2, 2010
  • Restoring the voice of the states - February 20, 2010
  • Palin speech marginalizes Tea Party movement - February 7, 2010
  • Our New Roofing Contractor - October 26, 2009
  • Remember Our Declaration on the 4th - July 3, 2009
  • National Security Advisor takes orders from Kissinger - March 22, 2009
  • Our Constitution is being taxed despite sworn oaths - March 20, 2009
  • The 2nd Amendment is to protect against tyranny - March 1, 2009
  • How to spot a Libertarian - February 22, 2009
  • Obama Meeting with Mayors Should Concern Us - February 21, 2009
  • Are You a Coward? - February 20, 2009
  • Welcome Texas to the Sovereignty Movement - February 20, 2009
  • Obama Declares the Beginning of the End - February 18, 2009
  • We Are What We Repeatedly Do - February 17, 2009
  • Mr. President Try Online Meetings Instead - February 16, 2009
  • They Are Just Saying No,Just Another Blatant Lie! - February 15, 2009
  • Glenn Beck Attempts to Prove We Surround Them - February 13, 2009
  • Broken Promises Don’t Represent Change - February 13, 2009
  • Obama Claims This is Your Democracy, Really? - February 11, 2009
  • Are States Sovereign in America? - February 10, 2009
  • HR 833 Federal Reserve Board Abolition Act Introduced - February 5, 2009
  • States Continue to Introduce Claims of Sovereignty, Now Arizona - February 4, 2009
  • Washington State Introduces Claim to State Sovereignty - February 4, 2009
  • New Hampshire Seeking to Reclaim State Supremacy - February 3, 2009
  • Continental Congress 2009 - January 25, 2009
  • No Bailout Plan for We the People - November 29, 2008
  • Too Important to Our Country to Fail - November 24, 2008
  • Lieberman Avoids the Wrath of Democrats - November 19, 2008
  • An Open Letter to Jason Chaffetz - November 17, 2008
  • Our Unnaturally Positive Government - November 15, 2008
  • Utah’s New Minority Freshman Citizens - November 11, 2008
  • Commercialization of Our Elections - November 9, 2008
  • The GOP: Gather Our Principles - November 8, 2008
  • Fed Cuts Interest Rates Here We Go Again - October 30, 2008
  • Neither Are Magic Men - October 21, 2008
  • Are We in a Civil War? - October 18, 2008
  • To Waste a Vote - October 16, 2008
  • Obama’s Corporate Tax Flaw McCain Won’t Talk About - October 12, 2008
  • My Friends It’s Only Eight Years - October 8, 2008
  • Embracing the Revolution! - August 29, 2008
  • Embracing McCain’s Straight Talk - August 27, 2008
  • Embracing Obama’s Change - August 26, 2008
  • Grassroots Nation - August 18, 2008
  • Simplifying Our U.S. Congress - August 14, 2008
  • Iraqi National Congress Out-briefing - August 10, 2008
  • Article V Convention Time - August 9, 2008
  • Intervention vs. Non-intervention - July 19, 2008
  • Missile Tests Strengthen Government Resolve - July 9, 2008
  • Ron Paul’s Campaign Just Beginning - June 13, 2008
  • KOIA! - June 12, 2008
  • An Eagle’s Prayer - May 19, 2008
  • Liberty is not a statue, liberty is a choice - May 17, 2008
  • I Don’t Deny Terrorists… - May 14, 2008
  • Two Must Read Books - May 11, 2008
  • Open or Closed Primaries: What is the Answer? - May 2, 2008
  • Blood Relatives and Paid Staffers - May 1, 2008
  • Hillary’s Bad Memory Bad for All - March 25, 2008
  • Ron Paul Are We Wrong? - March 24, 2008
  • NAFTA Superhighways Comical or Reality? - March 21, 2008
  • It’s Pork for Easter Dinner! - March 14, 2008
  • Our Troops Die While We Sigh - March 14, 2008
  • Issues Candidates Don’t Want You to Think About - March 5, 2008
  • Ron Paul Enjoys Landslide Victory - March 5, 2008
  • KISS: Keep It Seriously Simple - March 4, 2008
  • When Illegal Alien Equates to Hate Speech Freedom Erodes - March 4, 2008
  • GOP: Goodbye Old Party! - March 1, 2008
  • Ron Paul’s Effect Unknown Yet Viable - February 29, 2008
  • Is Ron Paul a Good Measure for Congressional Candidates? - February 28, 2008
  • Obama, Clinton Agree Each are Inaccurate - February 27, 2008
  • Senator Jim DeMint’s Earmark Moratorium Amendment - February 27, 2008
  • Ron Paul Supporters Ignore Ralph Nader - February 26, 2008
  • Ralph Nader Calls for Direct Democracy - February 25, 2008
  • Michael Scheuer Says Ron Paul Understands Cause of Terrorism - February 23, 2008
  • Obama, Clinton Debate: Nothing is Our Fault! - February 21, 2008
  • Superhighways Threaten Sovereignty - February 21, 2008
  • Democratic Landslide Looms Despite Paul and Huckabee’s Efforts! - February 20, 2008
  • It’s a Bird, It’s a Plane, It’s a Super Delegate - February 20, 2008
  • Ron Paul Losing Presidential Idol - February 19, 2008
  • March of Liberty Radio Show Launch - February 16, 2008
  • Romney Performs Biggest Flip-Flop Yet! - February 14, 2008
  • Obama’s Success More Anti-Clinton? - February 13, 2008
  • Ron Paul Continues Campaign for Republican Traditions - February 12, 2008
  • Ron Paul Calls for March on Washington D.C. - February 12, 2008
  • Lou Dobbs’ Independent Voice Fails Listeners - February 12, 2008
  • Illegal Aliens Can Solve Troop Strength Challenge - February 11, 2008
  • Paul to Supporters, I’m a Republican! - February 9, 2008
  • Ron Paul Won’t Pay Us and Walk Away - February 9, 2008
  • Liberty’s Fighters Amaze Me! - February 7, 2008
  • Ron Paul Supporters Do We Stay or Do We Go? - February 7, 2008
  • Senator John McCain, A Lamb to the Slaughter - February 6, 2008
  • Ron Paul Still Running, Why? - February 6, 2008
  • Presidential Primaries the Tradition, the Joke! - February 5, 2008
  • Ron Paul Picks Up 40th Anti-Illegal Immigration Endorsement - February 5, 2008
  • Ron Paul Second in Maine State Delegates with 35% - February 4, 2008
  • Paul Campaign Awakening Understanding - February 4, 2008
  • Ron Paul Shines in The MTV, MySpace Forum - February 3, 2008
  • Can We Support Our Troops & Not Iraq War? - February 3, 2008
  • Ron Paul Attacks Root Causes of Problems! - February 2, 2008
  • Ron Paul “Hope for America Tour” Draws Large Crowds in Colorado - February 2, 2008
  • AP and Fox News Miss Ron Paul’s 4th Quarter Numbers - February 1, 2008
  • Ron Paul Rally at the University of Minnesota - February 1, 2008
  • Ron Paul Snubbed, John McCain Endorsed (Satire) - February 1, 2008
  • Clinton, Obama Play Nice - February 1, 2008
  • Schwarzenegger Changes Mind, Endorses McCain - January 31, 2008
  • McCain Romney GOP Feud Bad for Debate - January 31, 2008
  • John McCain in 100% Agreement with Ron Paul! - January 30, 2008
  • John Edwards Drops Out: Obama Wins - January 30, 2008
  • Hillary Clinton’sChange for Washington is Communism - January 30, 2008
  • Obama / Sebelius: An Unbeatable Ticket - January 29, 2008
  • President Bush’s No State of the Union Address - January 29, 2008
  • They Deceive – We Believe? - January 28, 2008
  • Youth Attempt to Kill Racism:Some Fear Their Success - January 27, 2008
  • Hey Paultard! - January 27, 2008
  • Independent Voters What is Really Your Choice? - January 26, 2008
  • Ron Paul in MSNBC’s GOP Debate: A Victorious Loss! - January 25, 2008
  • Stimulating the Economy:Our Government Saviors Soon to Rescue Us! - January 24, 2008
  • Time for Ron Paul to Quit! - January 22, 2008
  • Beware ANY Stimulus Package - January 18, 2008
  • Restore Our Congress, End Usurped Power - January 17, 2008
  • Ron Paul Threatens Oligarchy Rule! - January 15, 2008
  • Our Founders Cry: Take Down Our Monuments - January 14, 2008
  • Paul Supporters Crucify Me! - January 13, 2008
  • Shadow Government - January 12, 2008
  • Reclaim Congress: Demand an End to Oligarchy Rule! - January 10, 2008
  • The Constitution Party Preamble: Historically Inaccurate - January 9, 2008
  • We Weren’t to be a Democracy! - January 8, 2008
  • Ron Paul Digs Up Roots - January 7, 2008
  • Hey Paul! Give Me My Due! - January 5, 2008
  • Beware the Labels! - January 5, 2008
  • The Long Haul Revolution! - January 4, 2008
  • Corporate Media Must be Stopped. - January 3, 2008
  • To Caucus or Not to Caucus - January 3, 2008
  • Mitt Romney: It’s Not Religion, Its His Politics - January 3, 2008
  • Who Do You Have in the Ninth? - January 2, 2008
  • Why Am I a Ron Paul Republican? - December 29, 2007
  • Liberty’s Success = 471 - December 28, 2007
  • Ron Paul’s Reaction: Tough Common Sense - December 27, 2007
  • The Radical Truth About Ron Paul! - December 27, 2007
  • The Radical U.S. Constitution - December 26, 2007

The views expressed in this article belong to the author/contributor and do not necessarily reflect the views of the Nolan Chart or its ownership

Comments

States should not be sovereign. The individual should always be the sovereign entity in our society.

spoken like a obummer sheeple I assume

I am an Objectivist I have never heard Obama promoting the sovereignty of the individual. He is obviously part of the collectivist camp. States should have stronger authority than the federal government, but the individual is sovereign. If you understand that rights only apply to the individual, then this should make perfect sense to you.

Each state should have sovereignty over its land and its people. The federal government should exist an all encompassing entity with its power derived from the combined sovereignty of all states. Novel idea idea, huh? But, why not? The federal government simply will not exist without the states..

Yes and states cant exist with out people. For the people by the people and with the peoples consent.. My God is sovereign so there for i am too. Any man who thinks they can Judge people and have sins is blast…… Most of all history Judges were hung for bad judgements. There is over 3,000 fed laws. There is over 7,000 fed state county and city laws. My Creator has 10 laws. Personal Property tax should be illegal. Kc Mo schools have not had credits for 30 years, if you do pay this tax they can steel your Inalienable Creator Given rights AMONG THOSE ARE life liberty and persute of happiness, there for Among means some are a given like shelter. I own my home paid off for 5 years, if i dont pay this tax they steel it. If i am obligated to pay this tax they should give me my service if not what do i get back? Not painting your house in winter ticket of 300. If i own my home which i bought and secured myself it shouldn’t ever be used as a negotiation tool. Why do i feel like i never will own my home, i bought it for my kids happiness not the states. If they wanna say they should have bought it. All Government was ment to be limited.

Wendy,
who exactly, is “your creator” and what does your mother and father have to do with this conversation? You know, aside from some misspellings, you were on the right track. Then, you had to throw in the fantasy world of religion, and for what purpose?
Your religion ( I assume it to be Christian, the same one responsible for the holy wars, multiple burning at the stake, innumerable tortures and murders ( Spanish inquisition ), the rape, murder and theft of the continent of South America, and parts of Africa and India, etc. ad infinitude) is another “man made” government with multiple make believe characters supposedly running the whole corrupt thing.
Stick with the program Wendy. few of us are impressed with your devote servitude to the imaginary bearded man in the sky.
Lucifer

religeon never hurt a single soul and your disrespect of someones right to worship as they please quite naziesque..people hurt people..a religeon is an inanimate thing without a soul…I am sure you recognize a fellow souless thing?

Harold Eugene Johnson says

Google: muslim plan to destroy america

i don’t think so cause everything is under control of the government so far and i think all are OK with the present condition of the states.thanks for sharing the post here with us.keep it up.all the best.Tax Lien.

Either Obama is your God, or the God of the Bible is as expressed through juries of God given conscience in sovereign States. Do you want to be under color of law (can be legally unconscionable) or be entitled to that which is conscionable ? We had the juries of God given conscience at one time (The Most Trusted Folks In the State).

Jim Bedson, www.debatejim.com

The reality of the situation in which states have lost most too all of there sovereignty, come from the proggesive movement itself. The author is explicitly correct about the 17th amendment, something most political scientist disreagard as being any or at all important. Remember, our government absorbs its power from the people. How can a national government absorb such equal power from over 300 million citizens? It cannot, and both the federlist, and anti federalist knew that. Remember, the federalist were not against state and municipal government, they wanted a national government to handle national problems of the time(money, military, and treaties). Alexander Hamilton said that the states are to be always vigilant of the national government, and when the national government begins to overreach, the states should warn their citizens, and break into as many states as there are counties, to repeal the overreach. Where is this movement, especially since progressive liberals use the federalist papers as there main historical source, yet have never defined their direction.

You’re confusing legal sovereignty, which belongs to the state government, with NATIONAL sovereignty, which belongs to the PEOPLE of the state. That’s why Lincoln, Jackson etc. had to revise history, and claim that the Founding Fathers declared independence as a single nation, not 12 different nations.
So let’s just stop repeating the lie, okay?

The Constitution is a FEDERAL Constitution, NOT NATIONAL.
From the Declaration of Independence:
“We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these United Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, island ought to be totally dissolved and that as Free and Independent States,*they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may fright do.*”
So each state was declared as a sovereign nation to itself, and they mutually recognized each other as such.
And from the 1783 Treaty of Paris:
“His Britannic Majesty acknowledges the said United States, viz., New Hampshire, Massachusetts Bay, Rhode Island and Providence Plantations, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina and Georgia, *to be free sovereign and independent states,* that he treats with them as such, and for himself, his heirs, and successors, relinquishes all claims to the government, propriety, and territorial rights of the same and every part thereof.”
So they WON the status as sovereign nations, under international law and recognition.
And when the Constitution was proposed in 1787, the anti-federalists protested that the resulting union would TRY to take away the states’ national sovereignty so Madison responded on behalf of the federalists, to reassure everyone that this wouldn’t be the case. From Federalist #39:
“Each State, in ratifying the Constitution, is considered as a sovereign body, independent of all others, and only to be bound by its own voluntary act. In this relation, then, the new Constitution will, if established, be a FEDERAL, and not a NATIONAL constitution.”
There it is: VOLUNTARY, FEDERAL, and NOT NATIONAL. The USA was _not_ Brazil.
Thus, the states ratified the Constitution in response to this assurance, and therefore _with this intent_– which means that they remained_ sovereign nations.. particularly since they did not expressly_create_ a new nation, or part with their sovereignty.. which _cannot_ be done by _inference_, that’s a conqueror’s dream.
As for what “federal, not national” means, here’s a quote from the Law of Nations– which the Founders and states DID know:
*§ 10. Of states forming a federal republic.*
*Finally, several sovereign and independent states may unite themselves together by a perpetual confederacy, without ceasing to be, each individually, a perfect state. They will together constitute a federal republic: their joint deliberations will not impair the sovereignty of each member, though they may, in certain respects, put some restraint on the exercise of it, in virtue of voluntary engagements. A person does not cease tobe free and independent, when he is obliged to fulfil engagements which he has voluntarily contracted.*
Thus, the USA was a FEDERAL republic– NOT NATIONAL which means it was 100% _voluntary_, and each state was a sovereign nation.–not the union itself over the states… again, it wasn’t Brazil.
As Madison expressly wrote was SUPPOSED to happen against Lincoln:
*”ambitious encroachments of the federal government, on the authority of the State governments, would not excite the opposition of a single State, or of a few States only. They would be signals of general alarm. Every government would espouse the common cause. A correspondence would be opened. Plans of resistance would be concerted. One spirit would animate and conduct the whole. The same combinations, in short, would result from an apprehension of the federal, as was produced by the dread of a foreign, yoke and unless the projected innovations should be voluntarily renounced, the same appeal to a trial of force would be made in the one case as was made in the other.”*
So every state was SUPPOSED to unite against Lincoln, and rally their militias in loyalty to their respective state governments—in LIEU of the federal government– in opposition to the federal coup to make war against the national sovereignty of any state.
And as Madison maintained in the Virginia Report of 1800::
*It is indeed true that the term “states” is sometimes used in a vague sense, and sometimes in different senses, according to the subject to which it is applied. Thus it sometimes means the separate sections of territory occupied by the political societies within each sometimes the particular governments established by those societies sometimes those societies as organized into those particular governments and lastly, it means the people composing those political societies, in their highest sovereign capacity. Although it might be wished that the perfection of language admitted less diversity in the signification of the same words, yet little inconvenience is produced by it, where the true sense can be collected with certainty from the different applications. In the present instance, whatever different construction of the term “states,” in the resolution, may have been entertained, all will at least concur in that last mentioned because in that sense the Constitution was submitted to the “states” in that sense the “states” ratified it and in that sense of the term “states,” they are consequently parties to the compact from which the powers of the federal government result.*
*It appears to your committee to be a plain principle, founded in commonsense, illustrated by common practice, and essential to the nature of compacts, that, where resort can be had to no tribunal superior to the authority of the parties, the parties themselves must be the rightful judges, in the last resort, whether the bargain made has been pursued or violated. The Constitution of the United States was formed by the sanction of the states, given by each in its sovereign capacity. It adds to the stability and dignity, as well as to the authority, of the Constitution, that it rests on this legitimate and solid foundation. The states, then, being the parties to the constitutional compact, and in their sovereign capacity, it follows of necessity that there can be no tribunal, above their authority, to decide, in the last resort, whether the compact made by them be violated and consequently, that, as the parties to it, they must themselves decide, in the last resort, such questions as may be of sufficient magnitude to require their interposition.*
* However true, therefore, it may be, that the judicial department is, in all questions submitted to it by the forms of the Constitution, to decide in the last resort, this resort must necessarily be deemed the last in relation to the authorities of the other departments of the government not in relation to he rights of the parties to the constitutional compact, from which the judicial, as well as the other departments, hold their delegated trusts. On any other hypothesis, the delegation of judicial power would annul the authority delegating it and the concurrence of this department with the others in usurped powers, might subvert forever, and beyond the possible reach of any rightful remedy, the very Constitution which all were instituted to preserve.*
We need to get the truth out there.
And so it was. From the President Jackson’s Proclamation Regarding Nullification, December 10, 1832
“The unity of our political character (as has been shown for another purpose) commenced with its very existence. Under the royal government we had no separate character our opposition to its oppression began as UNITED COLONIES. We were the UNITED STATES under the Confederation, and the name was perpetuated and the Union rendered more perfect by the federal Constitution. In none of these stages did we consider ourselves in any other light than as forming one nation.
We declared ourselves a nation by a joint, not by several acts and when the terms of our confederation were reduced to form, it was in that of a solemn league of several States, by which they agreed that they would, collectively, form one nation… I consider, then, the power to annul a law of the United States, assumed by one State, incompatible with the existence of the Union, contradicted expressly by the letter of the Constitution, unauthorized by its spirit, inconsistent with every principle on which It was founded, and destructive of the great object for which it was formed.”
Of course this is an outright LIE, and laid the groundwork for Lincoln to engage in his bloody Jihad. From Lincoln’s First Inaugural Address:
“no State upon its own mere motion can lawfully get out of the Union that resolves and ordinances to that effect are legally void, and that acts of violence within any State or States against the authority of the United States are insurrectionary or revolutionary, according to circumstances.
The power confided to me will be used to hold, occupy, and possess the property and places belonging to the Government and to collect the duties and imposts… what may be necessary for these objects, there will be .. invasion,… using of force against or among the people anywhere.”
Now what would WE do, if the UN president said that today?

You may disagree with Lincoln’s position regarding State’s rights. I don’t think that was actually his opinion. He was a very intelligent man who understood the nuances of the law. However, he knew if he allowed a state to secede from the United States, the Union would fail. That was ALL he cared about. He was apathetic about slavery. If it ended or survived, that was not of interest to him. He was willing to wage war to preserve the Union. I disagree with him regarding State’s rights. I absolutely agree with him regarding preserving the Union. I certainly would not have the chutpah to be POTUS, no way!

The United States survived, grew, and became the world’s super power because Lincoln had the courage to say NO, you cannot break up our country simply because we disagree. In the end, it really wasn’t about State’s rights. They simply CLAIMED it was. It was about the right for a state to have slaves, which was how the South made their money.

Lincoln was about to admit some States to the Union: as Free States. This caused a ruckus. If Lincoln had been admitting those States as Slave states, we wouldn’t have had a Civil War. Our Civil War wasn’t about State’s rights. That was the cleaned up version. Oh, yes. It was about MONEY. Slavery was becoming a taboo thing all over Europe. It was on the outs. Human rights thing, you know. The South knew that slavery was going to end soon and all that free labor was gonna get really expensive.

In the end, the choice whether we had war or not wasn’t in Lincoln’s hands. He did not cause the war, he simply responded the only way he could to preserve the Union. There is no blood on his hands. There was no reason for the Confederate States to secede. When they did, slavery was still active in their states, there was NO threat to their income. So, why aggressively act towards the United States, simply because it was admitting States as Free States? What did they expect in response, other than a war?


SOVEREIGNTY

A Brief History in the Context of U.S. "Indian law"

This article was written as the entry for "Sovereignty" in the The Encyclopedia of Minorities in American Politics , part of the American Political Landscape Series (Phoenix, AZ: Oryx Press, 2000, at pp. 691-693). Copyright is held by Jeffrey D. Schultz & Co., Colorado Springs, CO (USA), with all rights reserved. It is published here as part of a course at the University of Massachusetts, Amherst, for educational purposes.

Sovereignty is classically defined as supreme legal authority. The concept was formulated by sixteenth century legal philosopher Jean Bodin and elaborated by many theorists since then. One basic controversy has been whether to trace supreme authority to the people or to a "divine right" of rulers. Another has been about the relation between legal authority and political-economic power which may influence or dominate law. The definition of sovereignty in federal Indian law partakes of both ancient controversies. An ambiguous concept from the start, surrounded by disagreement, sovereignty is perhaps most cryptic in federal Indian law.

The legal history of "tribal sovereignty" starts with colonialism. From their earliest contacts with the "new world," colonizing powers asserted sovereignty over indigenous peoples, based a theological-legal theory built on "divine right." Spain, Portugal, France, England, and other colonial regimes explicitly based their sovereignty claims on religious doctrines decreed by the Pope, who was regarded as having power to grant titles to portions of the earth for purposes of Christian civilization.

The result of colonial assertions of sovereignty was that indigenous nations were legally stripped of their independent status. Their existence was in some instances not recognized at all and their lands treated as legally "vacant" ( terra nullius ). In other instances, indigenous peoples were declared to have a "right of occupancy" but not ownership of their lands. In either instance, the fundamental principle was that supreme legal authority lay outside the indigenous nations.

In 1823, in Johnson v. McIntosh , 8 Wheat. 543, the Supreme Court adopted for the United States the "right of occupancy" version of colonial sovereignty. This remains the basic legal position of federal Indian law, despite the fact that "divine right" is not accepted elsewhere in United States law. The Johnson v. McIntosh decision may be seen as a laundry for sovereignty theory, washing out the theology and transferring "divine" powers to a secular state.

The debate about legal authority versus political and economic power also informs the definition of sovereignty in federal Indian law. In the earliest treaties, statutes, and cases, indigenous nations were regarded as having a "subordinate" sovereignty related to their "right of occupancy." Denied full sovereignty as independent nations, they were nevertheless regarded as having authority over their own relations amongst themselves --an "internal" or "tribal" sovereignty. In Worcester v. Georgia , 6 Pet. 515 (1832), for example, the Supreme Court declared that the Cherokee Nation possessed "its right to self-government," even though it was "dependent" on the United States. Justice McLean concurred, saying, "At no time has the sovereignty of the country been recognized as existing in the Indians, but they have been always admitted to possess many of the attributes of sovereignty." McLean went on to question whether there could be any end to this "peculiar relation": "If a tribe of Indians shall become so degraded or reduced in numbers as to lose the power of self-government. the protection of the local law, of necessity, must be extended over them."

The Court picked up Justice McLean's suggestion in 1886, in United States v. Kagama , 118 U.S. 375, when it reduced indigenous sovereignty almost to a nullity, declaring, ". Indians are within the geographical limits of the United States. The soil and the people within these limits are under the political control of the Government of the United States, or of the States of the Union. There exist within the broad domain of sovereignty but these two." The Court did not base its assertion of a broad federal power over Indians on any clause of the Constitution, but on the "right of exclusive sovereignty which must exist in the National Government." The Court went on to state, "The power of the General Government over these remnants of a race once powerful, now weak and diminished in numbers, is necessary to their protection, as well as to the safety of those among whom they dwell." In half a century, Justice McLean's suggestion that political and economic factors might override legal sovereignty was manifested in the Court's broad assertion of general federal power over Indians.

But the Kagama case was not the end of "tribal sovereignty." The concept rose again in the "New Deal" administration of the federal government. Felix Cohen, whose efforts as a high-ranking lawyer in the Interior Department made him a major architect of the new deal for Indians, resurrected "tribal sovereignty" as an organizing principle of the Indian Reorganization Act of 1934 , 48 Stat. 984. He wrote, in his Handbook of Federal Indian Law , ". [T]hose powers which are lawfully vested in an Indian tribe are not, in general, delegated powers granted by express acts of Congress, but rather inherent powers of a limited sovereignty which has never been extinguished." Cohen did not suggest that Congress could not extinguish all Indian sovereignty he merely argued that until extinguished by federal authority, it remained part of federal Indian law.

The Indian Reorganization Act provided for the formation of "tribal governments" under federal authority as vehicles for Indian "self-government." The Act provided a model of government based on democratic and corporate structures often at odds with the original forms of organization among indigenous nations. The fact that the New Deal abandoned some of the grosser exercises of federal authority typical of the allotment era that preceded it made it appear attractive to native peoples but the contradictions embodied in a concept of "dependent sovereignty" would continue to produce conflict and confusion in federal Indian law.

The situation after 1934 remained complexly disordered. One might say of Indian sovereignty, "now you see it, now you don't." In 1973, in McClanahan v. Arizona , 411 U.S. 164, the Supreme Court invalidated a state income tax on individual Indians on an Indian reservation. The Court relied on the principle of "tribal sovereignty," yet suggested that such sovereignty might not be inherent, but rather derived from federal power. The Court referred to "platonic notions of Indian sovereignty" and referred to Indian sovereignty as "a backdrop" for analyzing treaties and federal statutes. The Court did not suggest that the whole concept of sovereignty was "platonic," or that it was only a "backdrop" for analyzing all political and economic power.

Subsequent to McClanahan, the Court swung back and forth repeatedly. As Vine Deloria, Jr., wrote in Of Utmost Good Faith , in federal Indian law the Supreme Court "skips along spinning off inconsistencies like a new sun exploding comets as it tips its way out of the dawn of creation." In 1978 alone, the Court went from almost completely subordinating indigenous sovereignty under federal law in Oliphant v. Suquamish , 435 U.S. 191, to an affirmation of it as a third kind of sovereignty in the United States in United States v. Wheeler , 435 U.S. 313. The latter decision was a complete contradiction of the analysis in Kagama. In 1997, in Idaho v. Coeur d'Alene Tribe , No. 94-1474, the Supreme Court held that "Indian tribes . should be accorded the same status as foreign sovereigns, against whom States enjoy Eleventh Amendment immunity." This was a startling contrast to the foundational federal Indian law decision in Cherokee Nation v. Georgia , 5 Pet. 1 (1831) that the Cherokee were not sovereign as a "foreign nation."

The concept of sovereignty, however convoluted and contradictory, remains an important part of federal Indian law. Tribal councils established under the Indian Reorganization Act are regarded as vehicles of "tribal sovereignty" they act as governments and not just as corporations, though they are often limited by federal funding and authority. Indian hunting and fishing rights have been protected against state and local regulation, though an ultimate authority has been reserved outside the realm of tribal sovereignty. Indian nations are regarded as immune from suit without their consent, under the doctrine of "sovereign immunity," yet their power over non-members of the particular nation is sometimes severely limited.

In short, the idea that indigenous nations have at their roots some aspect of their original, pre-colonial status as independent nations operates -- sometimes directly and sometimes by implication -- throughout federal Indian law today. This idea is accompanied by the colonial legacy of superior authority claimed over indigenous nations by the federal government. Both these ideas have been part of federal Indian law from its inception, and are the reason why Chief Justice Marshall could say, in formulating the foundations of this law in the Cherokee Nation case, "The condition of the Indians in relation to the United States is perhaps unlike that of any other two people in existence."

In assessing the results of "tribal sovereignty" at the close of the 20th century, Vine Deloria, Jr., and Clifford Lytle wrote, "Local institutions that served Indians were in a much stronger position even though they now resembled the local units of government that served other Americans and possessed little that was distinctly Indian. Indians themselves had assimilated to a significant degree. " This may be the ultimate irony, that "tribal sovereignty" could prove to be the vehicle for incorporating indigenous nations within the colonizers' civilization. It may also be true that the persistence of "tribal sovereignty" has kept alive the idea of local sovereignty, of "the people" as the ultimate source of legal authority.

The idea of indigenous sovereignty surfaced internationally and with intensity in the Draft United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples , E/CN.4/Sub. 2/1994/56, issued in 1994 as a report to the U.N. Commission on Human Rights. This document, which may eventually become the basis for an international protocol or convention, stirred up the ancient debates. The United States took an official position that the word "peoples" was inappropriate in a statement of "rights," because it implied group rights, which would threaten the sovereignty of states. The United States and others argued that "rights" adhere only to individuals, and that no group may be recognized as having any legal existence independent of a state. Indigenous nations, on the other hand, asserted that the Draft Declaration was meant to embody just such group rights, that these were essential for the survival of indigenous peoples worldwide. Struggles about indigenous sovereignty continue into the 21st century, on as grand a scale as in any other era.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

  • Cohen, Felix S. Handbook of Federal Indian Law. Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office, 1942.
  • Deloria, Vine, Jr. Of Utmost Good Faith. New York: Bantam, 1971.
  • Deloria, Vine, Jr., and Lytle, Clifford. American Indians, American Justice. Austin: University of Texas, 1983.
  • Fried, Morton H. The Notion of Tribe. Menlo Park: Cummings Pub. Co., 1975.
  • Jennings, Francis. The Invasion of America. New York: W.W. Norton & Co., 1976.
  • Newcomb, Steven T. "The Evidence of Christian Nationalism in Federal Indian Law: The Doctrine of Discovery, Johnson v. McIntosh, and Plenary Power." N.Y.U. Rev. of Law & Social Change. XX no. 2 (1993): 303-341.
  • Salmond, Sir John. Jurisprudence. 8th edition, by C.A.W. Manning. London: Sweet & Maxwell, 1930.
  • Savage, Mark. "Native Americans and the Constitution: The Original Understanding." American Indian Law Rev. 16 (1991): 57-118)
  • Scott, Craig. "Indigenous Self-Determination and Decolonization of the International Imagination: A Plea." Human Rights Quarterly. 18 (November 1996): 814-20.
  • Williams, Robert A., Jr. The American Indian in Western Legal Thought. New York: Oxford University Press, 1990.

Valeria Aleksandrova has provided a Polish translation of this essay on her blog. Thank you, Valeria!


The Act of 1871: The “United States” Is a Corporation – There are Two Constitutions

(POPEYE) Since the Act of 1871 which established the District of Columbia, we have been living under the UNITED STATES CORPORATION which is owned by certain international bankers and aristocracy of Europe and Britain.

In 1871 the Congress changed the name of the original Constitution by changing ONE WORD — and that was very significant as you will read.

Some people do not understand that ONE WORD or TWO WORDS difference in any “legal” document DO make the critical difference. But, Congress has known, and does know, this.

1871, February 21: Congress Passes an Act to Provide a Government for the District of Columbia, also known as the Act of 1871.

With no constitutional authority to do so, Congress creates a separate form of government for the District of Columbia, a ten mile square parcel of land (see, Acts of the Forty-first Congress,” Section 34, Session III, chapters 61 and 62).

The act — passed when the country was weakened and financially depleted in the aftermath of the Civil War — was a strategic move by foreign interests (international bankers) who were intent upon gaining a stranglehold on the coffers and neck of America.

Congress cut a deal with the international bankers (specifically Rothschilds of London) to incur a DEBT to said bankers. Because the bankers were not about to lend money to a floundering nation without serious stipulations, they devised a way to get their foot in the door of the United States.

The Act of 1871 formed a corporation called THE UNITED STATES. The corporation, OWNED by foreign interests, moved in and shoved the original Constitution into a dustbin. With the Act of 1871, the organic Constitution was defaced — in effect vandalized and sabotage — when the title was capitalized and the word “for” was changed to “of” in the title.

THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA is the constitution of the incorporated UNITED STATES OF AMERICA.

It operates in an economic capacity and has been used to fool the People into thinking it governs the Republic. It does is not!

Capitalization is NOT insignificant when one is referring to a legal document. This seemingly “minor” alteration has had a major impact on every subsequent generation of Americans.

What Congress did by passing the Act of 1871 was create an entirely new document, a constitution for the government of the District of Columbia, an INCORPORATED government. This newly altered Constitution was not intended to benefit the Republic. It benefits only the corporation of the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA and operates entirely outside the original (organic) Constitution.

Instead of having absolute and unalienable rights guaranteed under the organic Constitution, we the people now have “relative” rights or privileges. One example is the Sovereign’s right to travel, which has now been transformed (under corporate government policy) into a “privilege” that requires citizens to be licensed.

By passing the Act of 1871, Congress committed TREASON against the People who were Sovereign under the grants and decrees of the Declaration of Independence and the organic Constitution.

The Act of 1871 became the FOUNDATION of all the treason since committed by government officials.


Federal policy toward Indians and tribal governments was inconsistent throughout much of the 19th century. As the 1900’s approached, federal officials adopted a goal of assimilation and initiated efforts to end the reservation and tribal government system.

Then, in a major policy change enacted between 1880 and 1930, reservations were surveyed and lands deeded to Indian and non-Indian individuals. Tribal land holdings were vastly diminished and tribal governments were greatly weakened or eliminated. This became known as the “termination” era. Indian children were taken from their homes, moved to federal schools, and barred from using their native language or visiting their reservation homes. During this period, Indian social and economic problems skyrocketed.


What kind of multiple choice AP US History questions will I see about exploration and colonization?

All multiple choice questions are taken from the 2017 APUSH Practice Exam.

Questions 1 and 2 refer to the excerpt below.

“Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.”
Thomas Jefferson, Declaration of Independence, 1776

1. The excerpt was written in response to the
A. British government’s attempt to assert greater control over the North American colonies
B. British government’s failure to protect colonists from attacks by American Indians
C. colonial governments’ failures to implement mercantilist policies
D. colonial governments’ attempts to extend political rights to new groups

2. The ideas about government expressed in the excerpt are most consistent with which of the following?
A. The concept of hereditary rights and privileges
B. The belief in Manifest Destiny
C. The principle of religious freedom
D. The ideas of the Enlightenment

Questions 3-5 refer to the excerpt below.

“The colonizers brought along plants and animals new to the Americas, some by design and others by accident. Determined to farm in a European manner, the colonists introduced their domesticated livestock—honeybees, pigs, horses, mules, sheep, and cattle—and their domesticated plants, including wheat, barley, rye, oats, grasses, and grapevines. But the colonists also inadvertently carried pathogens, weeds, and rats. . . .In sum, the remaking of the Americas was a team effort by a set of interdependent species led and partially managed (but never fully controlled) by European people.”
Alan Taylor, historian, American Colonies, 2001

3. The export of New World crops to the Old World transformed European society mostly by
A. improving diets and thereby stimulating population growth
B. encouraging enclosure of open lands and pushing workers off of farms
C. promoting greater exploration of the interior of the American continents
D. fostering conflicts among major powers over access to new food supplies

4. The patterns described in the excerpt most directly foreshadowed which of the following developments?
A. The spread of maize cultivation northward from present-day Mexico into the American Southwest
B. The population decline in Native American societies
C. The gradual shift of European economies from feudalism to capitalism
D. The emergence of racially mixed populations in the Americas

5. The trends described by Taylor most directly illustrate which of the following major historical developments in the Atlantic world?
A. The growth of mercantile empires that stretched across the Atlantic
B. The increasing anglicization of the English colonies
C. The phenomenon known as the Columbian Exchange
D. The rise of the trans-Atlantic slave trade

Questions 6-9 refer to the map below, of the British settlement of the thirteen colonies. You can also check out the larger version on page 16 of the Practice Exam.

6. The map most directly depicts the
A. inland expansion of the colonial population
B. effects of industrialization
C. pattern of American Indian resistance
D. decline of tobacco production

7. The pattern of colonial settlement up to 1700 resulted most directly from which of the following factors?
A. The large size of British colonial populations relative to American Indian populations
B. British recognition of Native American sovereignty
C. The orientation of the British colonies toward producing commodities for export to Europe
D. British government attempts to impose greater control over the colonies in the late 1600s

8. The change in settlement patterns from 1700 to 1775 had which of the following effects?
A. A decrease in the coastal population
B. An increase in conflicts between British settlers and American Indians
C. A decrease in the economic importance of slavery and other forms of coerced labor
D. An increase in trade with French Canada

9. The change in settlement patterns from 1700 to 1775 best explains the
A. development of economic differences between the northern and southern colonies
B. colonists’ difficulties in effectively resisting the British military during the American Revolution
C. significant proportion of colonists who remained loyal to Great Britain during the American Revolution
D. growth of social tensions between backcountry settlers and coastal elites

Correct Answers: Multiple Choice


When did GB acknowledge the USA as sovereign state? - History

UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT BANKRUPTCY!

This chapter ties in with the chapter on the 14th Amendment. They go hand in hand. As we learned there, the 14th Amendment applies to artificial persons called U.S. citizens (corporate property), created by the federal government, and subject to it's jurisdiction.

The 14th amendment applies to 'persons born or naturalized'. Can property be born? Were slaves (property) born? In the early days of this country, when you were born, your birth was recorded in the family Bible. This showed you were under the jurisdiction of God, your creator. Starting in the 1930's, when you were born, you were issued a birth certificate from the state, and this certificate was recorded in the state records. After your birth certificate is recorded, it is sent to the Department of Commerce. Why there? Because the government is creating an artificial person and is just recording the birth of their property, that they will control and use for generating tax revenue. This is done to create an employee of the United States corporation to help pay off the national debt, since it is not legal to use private property to pay public debts. When you are bankrupt, you can use all the help you can get, or create!

The U.S. Constitution Art. I Section 8 says that one of the powers of the United States government is: To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states (50 states) , and with the Indian Tribes

So, if your birth certificate created some corporate property (artificial person) of the federal government, 'resident' in one of the 50 states, 'regulated' in commerce, does the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) apply to you?

U.S. Constitution Art. IV Section 3. The Congress shall have the power to dispose of and make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or other Property belonging to the United States

Are there federal rules and regulations that you are subject to? Are you then property of the U.S. government? Rules and regulations apply to U.S. territory and property. These birth certificates (property) were created so they could be put up for collateral for the bankruptcy of the United States government in 1933, in order for you to help pay off the debt through revenue collection. More on this in just a minute.

What about the sovereign 50 states? Do they belong to the United States government? Are they subject to the "Rules and Regulations" of the federal government (i.e. EPA, FAA, DEA, BATF, etc)? Are they sovereign states? Or are they also artificial persons (property) under the jurisdiction of the federal government? When states are created by Constitutions, they are delegated a portion of the people's sovereign powers. But, when states incorporate, they become artificial persons. The federal government has the power to regulate subjects (artificial persons) engaged in commerce. So the federal government WOULD have jurisdiction over the 50 states, because they all have incorporated into the federal government and are now artificial persons engaged in commerce. The states could solve this problem by un-incorporating and reclaiming their sovereign status. But then they would also have to give up federal handouts. What's the chance of that happening?

A United States citizen is a subject (property) of the federal government. His name is spelled in all caps. These citizens have only civil rights, (privileges and immunities) secured by the good faith and credit of the United States government. Neither state nor federal constitutions protect them.

An American Citizen is really not a citizen but is an individual sovereign. His name is spelled in upper and lower case letters. Some older documents may actually have it right, with upper and lower case. Most government computers are now programmed to only accept all caps. Also, if you use a middle initial, instead of spelling out your middle name, that also creates a fictional person. Your whole name must be spelled out to be a sovereign. It is basic English grammar.

A United States citizen has the status of an 'artificial person'. His name is spelled in all capital letters. When you contract to be a U.S. citizen (property of the U.S. government), via social security, you are basically co-signing for the debts of the federal government. You are pledging all your income and assets to helping discharge the bankruptcy!

Rely on your inalienable rights secured by the Constitution to protect you, not on your U.S. citizenship. If you want to get REAL technical, you cannot be a sovereign and a citizen at the same time. You waive your sovereignty when you become a citizen, because a citizen always swears his allegiance to a government. You cannot be a king or queen, and a subject, at the same time. You are really only one or the other. Sovereigns have inalienable rights. Subjects have privileges. BUT, you can contract to be a corporate identity. Then you would have two legal identities! Sovereign and corporate. And you waive your inalienable rights to be the corporate entity.

Here's an interesting point for you to ponder! In the Attorney General's report to President Eisenhower 'Jurisdiction Over Federal Areas Within the States' , there is an interesting statement in Part II - Chapter VI - Civil Jurisdiction. (pg 145) It says:

"The exclusive power of legislation necessarily includes the exclusive jurisdiction. The subject is so fully discussed by Mr. Justice Field, delivering the opinion of the court in Fort Leavenworth R.R. Co. v. Lowe, 114 U.S. 525, that we need do no more than refer to that case and the cases cited in the opinion."
After discussing this in depth for a while, the Attorney General then states (pg 155) "A careful study of the authorities has failed to disclose recognition prior to 1885 of any civil law existing in areas under the exclusive legislative jurisdiction of the United States.

(pg 156) International Law Rule: Adopted for areas under Federal Legislative Jurisdiction. In 1885 the United States Supreme Court had occasion to consider the case of Chicago, Rock Island & Pacific Ry. v. McGlinn , 114 U.S. 542. The court ruled: It is a rule of public law, recognized and acted upon by the United States, that whenever political jurisdiction and legislative power over any territory are transferred from one nation or sovereign to another , the municipal laws of the country, that is, laws which are intended for the protection of private rights, continue in force until abrogated or changed by the new sovereign. . . . Thus, upon a cession of political jurisdiction and legislative power - the latter is involved in the former - to the United States, the laws of the country in support of an established religion, or abridging the freedom of the press, or authorizing cruel or unusual punishments, and the like, would at once cease to be of obligatory force without any declaration to that effect and the laws of the country on other subjects would necessarily be superseded by existing laws of the new government upon the same matter.
The Attorney General continued: "The rule thus defined by the court had been applied previously to foreign territories acquired by the United States, but not until the McGlinn case was it extended to areas within the States over which the Federal Government acquired exclusive legislative jurisdiction."

When a state accepts federal subsidies (free lunches), it also accepts exclusive federal legislation and regulation connected with those subsidies. Does the state at that time waive its sovereign status? It appears so. The state is now federal territory, and the transfer of legislative power from the state to the federal government creates the effect that the laws no longer have an obligatory force, without notice! And any laws of the state are superseded by federal laws. That is why all state laws are almost carbon copies of the federal laws. They ARE federal laws!

Back to the Attorney General in his chapter on Civil jurisdiction.

State and Federal Venue Discussed: The civil laws effective in an area of exclusive Federal jurisdiction are Federal Laws, notwithstanding their derivation from State laws, and a cause arising under such laws may be brought in or removed to a Federal district court under sections 24 or 28 of the former Judicial Code (now section 1331 and 1441 of title 28, United States Code), giving jurisdiction to such courts of civil actions arising under the "* * * laws * * * of the United States" where the matter in controversy exceeds the sum or value of $3000, . . . (Several case cites omitted) In each of these it was decided that the laws of the State (Missouri) existing at the time of Federal acquisition of legislative jurisdiction over an area became "laws of the United States" within that area.

So it appears that when the Federal government acquires legislative jurisdiction over a state, (or a person) that state waives its sovereignty, and the laws of the state technically become federal laws. The District of Columbia was incorporated in 1871, and the federal usurpation started in earnest in 1885. So, in the definition of the United States, are the 50 states NOW federal territories under its exclusive jurisdiction? Are you a U.S. citizen living in one of those 50 federal territories? Were you born in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof? Did you waive your sovereignty?

Remember from the last chapter, when Congress passes laws for the territories of the United States, they are not limited by the Constitution. When they pass laws for the 50 states they must follow the limitations of the Constitution, because the 50 states delegated the power to Congress. The 50 states are superior to the federal government. So how does the federal government get the power to make laws for the 50 states?

DeLima v. Bidwell 182 U.S. 179 (1900) If the law or treaty making power enacts that the territory over which the military arm of the government has extended shall come under the permanent absolute sovereign jurisdiction of the United States, a new and different status arises. The former sovereign then loses all right of reverter, and the territorial limits of the United States are in so far enlarged.

Did the United States government (confined to 10 miles square by the constitution) through military usurpation, extend the military arm of the government to include the 50 sovereign states? Yes they did. By this simple act, the 50 sovereign states came under the " permanent absolute sovereign jurisdiction of the United States" corporate government, ruled by the Commander In Chief, under martial law. We in reality have a dictatorship, but if the people knew that there would be revolt, so it is kept under wraps and is not taught in the public fool system.

HOW WE GOT INTO THIS MESS

To understand where we are today, we must go back and learn all the history lessons that we were never taught in the government schools. You see, the government doesn't want you to know this information, so they just don't teach it to you in the first place! Why do you think they are so against home schooling, where you can teach your own beliefs, and the truth?

So, let's do this in chronological order, so we can see exactly what happened. Today's mess started over 200 years ago. We started out right, with 2 great documents:

THE DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE (1776) . If you have not read this document, click on this link and read it slowly. You will find that the conditions that precipitated this document are almost exactly the conditions we live under today!

THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA (1787). The people who wrote this document were very familiar with government oppression and put many safeguards into it to protect your inalienable rights. This is the document that we need to keep, and uphold. It is being flagrantly violated today at all levels of government. You will find out why in just a second!

Now, if we know anything about governments, it is the fact that they do not like their powers limited or restricted. Just like us! They want maximum freedom to do whatever they jolly well please, just like us! You would almost think that humans created the government! Do you think that the people running the government for you, wanted freedom, AND, power over the people at the same time? Sure, isn't that what we all want? Total freedom, but also the power to make other people do what WE want! Get a bunch of us together and you have a government! But what about those who do not agree with that principle? Won't they cause problems? Won't they need to be controlled? You bet!

THE WHISKEY TAX AND REBELLION (1792-1794) In 1792 the federal government imposed a whiskey excise tax of 25%. This particularly hurt the farmers on the western frontier, since they grew grain and converted it to whiskey, because grain was too expensive to ship. Whiskey was used as a form of cash that was easily transportable. To collect the tax, the forerunner of the IRS was created. The country was divided into 14 districts, with 14 district directors. When the farmers in western Pennsylvania refused to pay the tax, a judge on the Supreme Court certified the existence of a state of insurrection, and President Washington called out the militia for a show of force. Fortunately, no military confrontation ensued. This was the first time that a President had assumed his position as Commander in Chief. This was the first exercise of "emergency powers".

THE ALIEN ACT of 1798. With this Act, Congress delegated to the President virtually unlimited power to "direct the conduct" of nationals of hostile countries whenever the United States should be engaged in a declared war or it's territory threatened with invasion. This Act, though somewhat amended is still on the books today. The Alien Act obligated the President to make a declaration of a state of war or of threatened invasion, which entitled him to use these new powers.

Now you know why we have the "War on Drugs", the "War on Poverty", the "War on Crime", the "War on Terrorism", etc. It is so the president can exercise his emergency powers over us hostile nationals.

THE CIVIL WAR 1861-1865. In 1861, due to this war, seven Southern states walked out of Congress on March 27. This left Congress without a quorum to conduct the nation's business, so the only lawful power left was the President. President Lincoln declared a state of war and exercised his powers as Commander in Chief, to institute martial law under a state of emergency. Congress was NEVER legally reconvened under the Constitution. Lincoln ordered Congress to reconvene under his military authority as Commander in Chief (not as President), therefore Congress still sits today under military authority, by order of the President. This was accomplished through the Lieber Laws of 1863.

Lincoln also funded the war entirely by issuing war bonds, T-Bills, etc, which essentially put the United States government into bankruptcy in 1863. One of the funding schemes used was the so called 1040 Bonds. These bonds were to run not less than 10 years nor more than 40 years at 7.13% interest. To collect the interest on these 1040 Bonds, a form 1040 was used by the government. By 1864, the value of these bonds had dropped to 39 cents on the dollar.

In 1861, to collect the interest on those 1040 bonds, Congress created the Bureau of Internal Revenue. Do you think that was just a coincidence? Do you think that maybe the interest was never paid and we are still using the form today to collect?

To handle this bankruptcy, the Comptroller of the Treasury was created in 1863. What does a Comptroller do? He is charged with certain duties in relation to the fiscal affairs of the government, primarily to examine and audit the accounts of collectors of the public money, to keep records and report the financial situation from time to time. But the term we are concerned with is "Comptroller in Bankruptcy".

BOUVIER'S LAW DICTIONARY 1914.
Comptroller in Bankruptcy. An officer . . . whose duty it is to receive from the trustee in each bankruptcy his accounts and periodical statements showing the proceedings in the bankruptcy, and also to call the trustee to account for any misfeasance, neglect, or omission in the discharge of his duties.

So if the government is bankrupt, who is the trustee? This is answered for us by Congressional Record March 17, 1993. P.H1303. The following is from that record:

Mr. TRAFFICANT asked and was given permission to revise and expand his remarks.
Mr. TRAFFICANT. Mr. Speaker, we are here now in chapter 11. Members of Congress are official trustees presiding over the greatest reorganization of any bankrupt entity in world history, the U.S. government.

The United States government is in bankruptcy and Congress are the trustees. It is a legal maxim that a bankrupt is 'civilly dead'. That means that Congress cannot legally make positive law in bankruptcy, because they have no legal standing. The federal government has been in Chapter 11 bankruptcy from 1863 to today, and sits at the pleasure of the Commander in Chief, waiting to do his bidding.

14th Amendment 1868. The 14th Amendment was passed while under military rule, and therefore did not need to be properly ratified by the states, because the states were now under the federal government, under martial law, and the states changed their constitutions to reflect that change in order to be readmitted to the union. By the way, that is also why the 16th Amendment for income tax did not need to be properly ratified, since it too was passed by a Congress exercising their military powers. The 14th Amendment applied to 'citizens'. "Every person born or naturalized in the United States and subject to it's jurisdiction is a citizen."

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA created 1871. Congress was reconvened under military order in 1861. This status did not change, and in 1871, ten years later, a new federal government was created by incorporation of the District of Columbia. This new corporation was called "United States". The old Congress ceased to exist in 1861 and the new Congress was reconvened under military rule, which created Washington D.C. in 1871. Even today Congress does not sit by Constitutional positive law, but by mere resolution, which is merely advisory, not compulsory. Resolutions only apply to those who make them, like New Year's Resolutions. That is why the House and Senate are continually making resolutions. They merely indicate what public policy may be, but they carry no force of law with them, except on themselves and their property . This is the key to military government. Unless government is permanently established by those who have law, there is no state of peace. Therefore we are still under military law.

TRADING WITH THE ENEMY ACT October 6, 1917. This was passed during World War I. Woodrow Wilson submits to Congress and passes this Act. The purpose of this Act was to " define, regulate , and punish trading with the enemy , and for other purposes." With this Act Congress defined WHO the enemy was. It also gave the government total authority over the individuals defined as the "enemy". In the definition of enemy there was an exception in Section 2, Subdivision (c). It was: "other than citizens of the United States."
In Section 5(b) of this same Act it states:
"That the President may investigate, regulate, or prohibit, under such rules and regulations as he may prescribe, by means of licenses or otherwise, any transactions in foreign exchange, export or earmarkings of gold or silver coin or bullion or currency , transfers of credit in any form (other that credits relating solely to transactions to be executed wholly within the United States)."


EMERGENCY BANKING ACT March 9, 1933. President Roosevelt called for a special and extraordinary session of Congress in Proclamation 2038. At that session he presented a bill, an Act, to provide for relief in the existing national 'emergency' in banking and for other purposes.

In this Act of March 9, 1933, it states in Title 1 Section 1:
"The actions, regulations, rules, licenses, orders and proclamations heretofore or hereafter taken, promulgated, made, or issued by the President of the United States or the Secretary of the Treasury since March the 4th, 1933, pursuant to the authority conferred by subdivision (b) of Section 5 of the Act of October 6, 1917, as amended, are hereby approved and confirmed. "

This says that any actions, orders or proclamations, made by the President hereafter taken, are hereby approved and confirmed. Congress just wrote a blank check to the President. ANYTHING he wants to do is approved, IN ADVANCE! Do you think we are living under a dictatorship! Is that how the President is acting today, as if everything he does is already approved? It seems so.

If you went to a law library today and looked up 12 USC (United States Code) Section 95(b), you will find this Act still on the books today!

But, if you will remember, the Act of 1917 applied to enemies "other than citizens of the United States." So in 1917 the war powers did not extend to citizens of the United States, and the government did not have authority over us and the Constitution was still valid and upheld. But Roosevelt made an amendment to the 1917 Act, in 1933. In Section 2 of the Act of March 9, 1933 it states:

"Subdivision (b) of Section 5 of the Act of October 6, 1917 (40 Stat. L. 411), as amended, is hereby amended as follows
During time of war or during any other time of national emergency declared by the President, the President may, through any agency that he may designate, or otherwise, investigate, regulate, or prohibit, under such rules and regulations as he may prescribe, by means of licenses or otherwise, any transactions in foreign exchange, transfers of credit between or payments by banking institutions as defined by the President and export, hording, melting, or earmarkings of gold or silver coin or bullion or currency, by any person within the United States or anyplace subject to the jurisdiction thereof. "

By simply including in this amendment "any person within the United States or anyplace subject to the jurisdiction thereof", citizens of the United States were now included in the definition of 'enemies of the United States'! As far as any commercial, monetary or business transactions were concerned, United States citizens were no longer any different from any other enemy of the United States.

In 1917, due to World War I, Congress passed the Trading With the Enemy Act, and defined the enemy as "other than citizens of the United States". This Act allowed the government to take control of any and all commercial, monetary or business transactions conducted by enemies within our continental borders. Section 5(b) of this Act gave the President unlimited powers to control the commercial transactions of the defined enemies.

During the Korean War, there was much publicity over the fact that Congress never declared war and charges were flung back and forth that the war was illegal. The same thing took place in the Viet Nam war and elsewhere. Today the President is still engaging our forces in foreign countries without the consent of Congress. These acts of the President are 100% legal, because as Commander-in-Chief he still has his emergency powers and he does not need the approval of Congress to engage in war. Congress only makes 'public policy' as trustees of the bankruptcy.

In the amendment in 1933, the Act was expanded to include " any person within the United States or anyplace subject to the jurisdiction thereof." Remember a "person" is a corporation! The people of the United States then became subject to the powers of the Trading With the Enemy Act of 1917. Note that the war power acts were also expanded to include 'national emergencies', as defined by the President. And didn't Roosevelt just proclaim a national banking emergency? Where does that place us? Since this Act is still on the books today, then it is still binding until the national emergency is resolved.

What was the national emergency in 1933? It was a banking crisis. The stock market had crashed in 1929 and a depression was in full swing. All the banks were closed for a 'bank holiday'. The REAL crisis was that until this Act was passed in 1933, your bank deposits were backed by gold in the vaults. The problem was that the gold was no longer there, and people were lining up at the banks and demanding to cash in their gold certificates for the gold they supposedly had on deposit. The banks didn't have the gold to return. A real crisis. What did they do with the gold? Gold was legally limited to $35 an ounce in the United States. But in Europe the value of gold floated and was worth $60 an ounce. The banks sold their gold to the European bankers and made a tidy profit at their customer's expense.

ROOSEVELT TURNS UP THE HEAT

President Roosevelt took office on March 4, 1933. During his term of office he implemented 100's of new national programs under the guise of a national emergency. Most of those programs are still on the books today, because we still have an emergency in those areas. The areas include, agriculture, banking, welfare, farming, etc. These emergency powers have been extended every year by the President, for some reason or other, and are still in full force today.

But you ask, "Are we STILL under a national emergency, and under martial law?" Yes, and have been since 1863, which was greatly expanded in 1933. In fact a special committee was formed to study the termination of the national emergency. This was done with:

Senate Report 93-549 , July 24, 1973, which said: "Since March 9, 1933, the United States has been in a state of declared national emergency." "These proclamations give force to 470 provisions of federal law. These hundreds of statutes delegate to the President extraordinary powers exercised by Congress, which affect the lives of American citizens in a host of all-encompassing manners. This vast range of powers taken together, confer enough authority to rule this country without reference to normal constitutional process."

This report WAS acted upon and the 94th Congress passed:

Public Law 94-112 - September 14, 1976 "To terminate certain authorities with respect to national emergencies still in effect, and to provide for orderly implementation and termination of future national emergencies."
There was one exception to this act though, in Section 502(a):
"The provisions of this Act shall not apply to the following provisions of law, the powers and authorities conferred thereby, and actions taken thereunder: (1) Section 5(b) of the Act of October 6, 1917, as amended (12 U.S.C. 95a 50 U.S.C. App. 5(b)"

So, what really happened? Did the national emergency of 1917, amended in 1933, come to an end? NO! We are still governed by 12 U.S.C. 95a & 95b, which originated with the Act of March 9, 1933. We are still living under emergency rule and martial law!

Can the state of emergency and martial law powers be terminated? Yes they can, but there is a problem. The Commander-in-Chief can terminate the martial powers at any time, BUT it would not make any difference, because what lawful government would take over? First a lawfully constituted authority would have to be put into power to replace the military power we are under now. So even if the martial rule was terminated we would still be exactly where we are now. Nothing would be accomplished. We would have to go back to the limitations of the Constitution, and the present government would never go along with that!

Fortunately, reclaiming your inalienable rights does not require any changes in the system! We can work with the present laws and still be free! But before we get to that . . .

Of all the Acts implemented by Roosevelt, the most important, to us, was:

June 5, 1933 - House Joint Resolution 192 (HJR-192)
". . . Resolved by the Senate and the House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled: That (a) every provision contained in or made with respect to any obligation which purports to give the obligee the right to require payment in gold or a particular kind of coin or currency , or in an amount in money of the United States measured thereby, is declared to be against public policy , and no such provision shall be contained in or made with respect to an obligation hereafter incurred. Every obligation heretofore or hereafter incurred, whether or not any such provision is contained therein or made with respect thereto, shall be discharged upon payment, dollar for dollar, in any such coin or currency, which at the time of payment is legal tender for public or private debts . . ."

Who is making this resolution? Remember, resolutions only apply to those who make them! This resolution basically said that debt can no longer be paid because the only way lawful payment can be made is with gold, or silver coin, or currency. And the government just confiscated all the gold in 1933, followed by silver in 1934. The only way you can now pay a debt is with Federal Reserve Notes (FRN's), which are just promissory notes backed by the government. And who is the government? YOU! So you do not "pay" the debt, you just "discharge" it to someone else, by giving him Federal Reserve promissory notes (FRN's). Any obligation incurred by the makers of the resolution, would not be paid, but would be discharged. A resolution is really just an opinion of how you would like things to be.

What just happened is that the government said that they were not going to redeem your Federal Reserve Notes. They were not backed by anything of value. This is simply the creation of a permanent loan to the government, from the people, and the loan could never be paid back.

And just WHAT are FRN's? Where do they come from? They are private commercial debt instruments issued by the Federal Reserve, which is a private corporation. So basically, EVERYTHING you do, that involves money, puts you into a private commercial transaction. Under International law, all commercial transactions are regulatable by the government when under martial rule. This commerce is regulated by way of licenses. Can you start a business without a business license? Not according to the government!

FRN's are created by debt. When you take out a loan from anywhere, the money for that loan is created out of thin air. It is new money. That is a very simple explanation, but that is really what happens! But, what backs this new money? A promissory note is not of much value unless there is some collateral backing it.

FRN's are backed by the full faith and credit of United States of America. Who is the United States of America? The federal government? No! It is you and me, because we created the federal government with the Constitution. And where does the credit come from? US! U.S. citizens are the collateral for the Federal Reserve Notes in circulation. When the government declared bankruptcy, all commercial activity, and the U.S. citizens themselves were pledged as collateral to pay off the debt.

So any time you use FRN's, you are dealing with the property of a corporation, a legal fiction in law. And a fiction can only deal with another artificial person. In fact, martial law governments are fictions created to manage civil affairs. Are you an artificial person? Remember what we learned about the spelling of your name? Is everything you do in business done in your name spelled with all caps? Yes it is! You are already an artificial person!

As stated above, all commercial activity was pledged as collateral for the debt. So the government had to find a way to make sure that EVERYTHING you did was in commerce, so it could tax and regulate EVERYTHING you did. Can you think of anything that the government does NOT regulate? There had to be a way to convert your inalienable rights to privileges. There WAS! What the government did was to register every person born, as property of the government, and make an artificial person out of them. This was done with the birth certificate. When you are born, you birth is recorded in the county you were born in. After that it is sent to the Department of Commerce and a new person is created! A U.S. citizen! But, with your name spelled in all caps, to designate you as an corporate person engaged in commerce.

What your birth 'certificate' really is, is just a 'Certificate of Title' to the U.S. citizen, just like you get for your car. Legally, you don't own the fictional U.S. citizen, and legally you don't own your car. The government holds the title to both of them, and issues you a Certificate of Title for your car and a Birth Certificate for the U.S. citizen. They are claiming this property as theirs by presumption. And it is, until you rebut this presumption. In the past you have gone along with this presumption because you didn't know the truth. You are the true owner of this property, your birth certificate. The government is just a holder of this property.


Federal Reserve Notes, prior to March 9, 1933 were backed by gold. After March 9, 1933, they became Federal Reserve 'bank' notes, and were emergency war script. The Federal Reserve bank notes were now backed by the assets of the banks. The assets of the banks are the mortgages held by the people on their property. But the people needed to be mortgaged also. This was done with the birth certificate, as stated above. So when you get a mortgage, it is paid with federal reserve notes, which are backed by your credit! You are loaning money to yourself!

The 'mortgages on property' part was partially accomplished with:

Senate Document No. 43, 73rd Congress, 1st Session, which states: "The ownership of all property is in the state individual so-called 'ownership' is only by virtue of the government, i.e., law, amounting to mere user and use must be in accordance with law and subordinate to the necessities of the state."

Congressional Record, March 9, 1933 on HR 1491 p. 83. "Under the new law the money is issued to the banks in return for government obligations, bills of exchange, drafts, notes, trade acceptances, and bankers acceptances. The money will be worth 100 cents on the dollar, because it is backed by the credit of the nation. It will represent a mortgage on all the homes, and other property of all the people of the nation."

When your birth certificate was recorded with the Department of Commerce, a U.S. citizen, corporate entity was created, so he could be taxed and regulated in commerce. This was the property of the federal government by usurpation. Therefore all the property of the U.S. citizen was now the property of the government! You are just the mere user of the property, by virtue of the government. The U.S. citizen was created to generate revenue. Your government is usurping your property, so it can generate revenue to pay its bankruptcy debts!

That is why you don't get a 'title' for your vehicle. You get a 'certificate' of title. That just certifies that there is a title held in the government's name, and you have permission to use this government property via the certificate of title. You must also pay a registration fee and get license plates for their property. Don't pay it and they will deny you the use of this property. When you record your real estate in the county, you are recording your turn to use the property in the corporation records. If you don't pay your usage (rental) fees (property taxes) they will take their property back via a tax sale, and sell the privilege to someone else. The value of the property is irrelevant. They are just concerned with the rent (tax) due. Your property has been usurped by the government. The same with zoning laws. If you want to build a garage on your property, you can do so only after you get permission via a building permit (another tax). If you don't get permission, they will make you tear it down.

This usurpation of your property could only be accomplished by the creation of the U.S. citizen, via your birth certificate. And now, all property is recorded in the name of the U.S. citizen, in all caps! Your sovereignty was usurped and converted to a commercial privilege. You became the co-signer for every commercial transaction the federal government became involved in, all to generate revenue. The big question is: How do you get your sovereignty back? You must reclaim your inalienable rights. More on this later.

First, an important point needs to be made clear here. In law, a fictitious entity can only deal with another fictitious entity, because only parties of equal standing can communicate in law. " A sovereign (the lawgiver) is exempt from suit, not because of any formal conception or obsolete theory, but on the logical and practical ground that there can be no legal right as against the authority that makes the law on which the right depends." "A suit presupposes that the defendants are subject to the law invoked. Of course it cannot be maintained unless they are so." Kawananakoa v. Polyblank (1907) 205 U.S. 349 .

This is known as the doctrine of Sovereign Immunity. The government uses this all the time to protect itself against lawsuits. They create the statutes, and they only agree to be bound by certain statutes. As a U.S. citizen, you do not have that right because you are property of the federal government. As a American citizen, you are the creator of the government, so you are immune from suit, unless you agree to waive this right and enter into a suit. Every time you file an legal action in a court, you agree to be bound by the rules of the court and the statutes of the jurisdiction you are acquiescing to. You waive any inalienable rights you may have and agree to be bound by the statutes.

With the above evidence, it appears that the 50 states are no longer sovereign states, but are mere subdivisions of the United States government. If this is true, HOW did it happen? The answer is found in the general principles of the law of nations. This law says that every government which is sovereign within its sphere of action possesses, as an inherent attribute, the power to acquire property, by discovery, by agreement or treaty, and by conquest. Were U.S.citizens declared enemies of the federal government? Were the states taken over by conquest, or by agreement, as demonstrated by the military flag in all our courtrooms, (see courts chapter) showing the jurisdiction of the federal corporate military government? This is clarified by Halleck in his treatise on International Law, pages 76, 814:

Chap. 2, 23. The sovereignty of a state may be lost in various ways. It may be vanquished by a foreign power, and become incorporated into the conquering state as a province or as one of its component parts or it may voluntarily unite itself with another is such a way that its independent existence as a state will entirely cease.

Chap 33,3. If the hostile nation be subdued and the entire state conquered, a question arises as to the manner in which the conqueror may treat it without transgressing the just bounds established by the rights of conquest. If he simply replaces the former sovereign, and on the submission of the people, governs them according to the laws of the state, they have no cause of complaint. Again, if he incorporates them with his former states, giving to them the rights, privileges, and immunities of his own subjects , he does for them all that is due from a humane and equitable conqueror to his vanquished foes.

Does this sound like the 14th Amendment? Absolutely! Did the states incorporate? Yes. Each state government is now a corporation called the STATE OF i.e. COLORADO. What did they incorporate into? Into the United States as component parts of the United States government, subject to its jurisdiction. Did they do this voluntarily? Again yes. The states, by accepting federal subsidies and jurisdiction, voluntarily united themselves with the federal government, and this new status, confirmed by the presumption of jurisdiction over the lapse of time, caused the independent existence of the sovereign states to cease to exist. Simply put, the 50 sovereign states no longer exist in fact, only in history books. All 50 states are now just subdivisions of the federal government.

Continuing with Halleck on International Law, page 839:

Complete conquest, by whatever mode it may be perfected, carries with it all the rights of the former government or in other words, the conqueror, by the completion of his conquest, becomes the absolute owner of the property conquered from the enemy nation or state. His rights are no longer limited to mere occupation of what he has taken into his actual possession, but they extend to all the property and rights of the conquered state, including even debts as well as personal and real property.

When the federal government declared Americans to be enemies of the federal government the conquest was started and completed without a shot being fired. At that point all your property, real or personal, became the property of the federal government. Remember the two quotes from above? Let's look at them again:

Senate Document No. 43, 73rd Congress, 1st Session, which states: "The ownership of all property is in the state individual so-called 'ownership' is only by virtue of the government, i.e., law, amounting to mere user and use must be in accordance with law and subordinate to the necessities of the state."

Congressional Record, March 9, 1933 on HR 1491 p. 83. "Under the new law the money is issued to the banks in return for government obligations, bills of exchange, drafts, notes, trade acceptances, and bankers acceptances. The money will be worth 100 cents on the dollar, because it is backed by the credit of the nation. It will represent a mortgage on all the homes, and other property of all the people of the nation."

The United States government is a corporation. This corporation has declared bankruptcy. This corporation had limited assets, so it created some assets (fictional persons) U.S. citizens, for collateral for the bankruptcy. The states also incorporated into the United States and pledged their property as collateral also.

The assets of every sovereign American, now U.S. citizens, are pledged as collateral to cover the growing federal government deficit. You own nothing. You just rent it from the government. If you pay a property tax or use tax on anything, then you do not own it, because if you do not pay the tax, they will take it away from you. You no longer have the inalienable right of property.

The United States government is in bankruptcy. The date it started is not really important. The fact of bankruptcy alone is what has created this mess.

As part of the bankruptcy, fictional persons were created, called United States citizens, to help collect revenue to pay the debt. These citizens are corporate employees/subjects of the federal government and have their names spelled in all caps.

This U.S. citizen is created property of the federal government. Therefore, all the property of these U.S. citizens, is really just the property of the federal government.You unknowingly contracted to become this U.S. citizen. You co-signed for all the federal debt.

All the statutes, rules, regulations, taxes, licenses, etc, of the state and federal governments apply only to fictional 'persons', res idents, such as U.S. citizens. The governments have no powers over a sovereign individual that the sovereign did not delegate to that government via the constitutions, state and federal.

A sovereign's property is exempt from taxation, except with a direct tax with apportionment, as mandated by the Constitution!

Are you a sovereign American, OR a U.S. citizen?

If you use any of the information in this chapter, the IRS and the courts will call it a frivolous argument and without merit. They WILL rule against you! Use this information at your own risk!


Why does the United States of America celebrate Independence Day on 4 July?

The Fourth of July is one of America’s biggest holidays, with today’s celebrations including fireworks and parades across the USA. But what exactly is Independence Day and what does it celebrate? Tom Cutterham, a lecturer in US History at the University of Birmingham, explains why Americans celebrate on the Fourth of July…

This competition is now closed

Published: July 4, 2020 at 4:05 am

In July 1776, during the second year of the American Revolutionary War (1775–83), representatives from 13 North American colonies of the kingdom of Great Britain voted to declare themselves independent from the crown, forming the United States of America. Two days after the historic vote, on 4 July 1776, the Declaration of Independence was signed – and each year since, Americans have celebrated.

Though the American Revolutionary War began in April 1775, the colonies did not initially demand complete separation from British rule instead they sought more autonomy within the British empire. However, British treatment of the American colonists as clear rebels and enemies over the opening months of the conflict leant weight to arguments for independence and, on 2 July 1776, in Philadelphia’s State House, representatives from 13 of Britain’s colonies in North America voted, at last, to publicly break their bonds with the mother country and its king, George III.

But 2 July is not the day that Americans celebrate every year. They chose instead 4 July, two days later, when Congressmen signed the finished version of the Declaration of Independence – a document that would announce their decision to the world.

Drafted mostly by Thomas Jefferson, a prominent lawyer and planter from Virginia (and later the third president of the United States between 1801–09), the Declaration of Independence features the famous lines: “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal” and have “certain unalienable rights” – among them “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness”. The declaration also describes Native Americans as “merciless savages”and blames King George for inciting American slaves to insurrection.

More than 240 years later, Americans still celebrate the day their rebel leaders put their signatures to Jefferson’s words. Here are five things you might not know about the Declaration of Independence and the events that mark today’s Independence Day celebrations…

The Declaration of Independence is a sacred document in the United States

Not for nothing did the late historian Pauline Maier call her 1997 book about the declaration, American Scripture.

Yet the document itself wasn’t always treated well it barely survived the British burning of Washington DC in 1814. But during the Second World War, the Declaration of Independence was delivered to Fort Knox, Kentucky, under Secret Service protection. In 1952, the declaration was placed in aspecially designed, bullet-proof case in a “shrine” under the rotunda of the National Archives in Washington DC. At night, it is lowered into a concrete and steel-reinforced bunker. And every day, Americans file past and stare at it in reverence.

There’s a share of the divine in the declaration’s text, too. Jefferson wasn’t known as the most pious Christian, but he included “nature’s god” in his text – by whose power “all men are created equal”. He also closed the text by invoking its signers’ “sacred honor” along with their lives and fortunes, which the American revolutionaries were putting on the line when they broke away from Great Britain.

The Declaration of Independence has had many imitators, at home and abroad

The events of 4 July 1776 helped inspire colonial independence movements around the world – especially in South America, where revolution overthrew the Spanish empire in the first decades of the 19th century. Venezuela’s 1811 declaration of independence, for example, had clear echoes of Jefferson’s text, announcing that the provinces of Venezuela “are, and ought to be […] free, sovereign, and independent states.” Revolutionaries across the continent and elsewhere drew on the American example, as they asserted their right to self-government against European empires.

In the United States itself, the declaration has also found many echoes in later political documents. “That all men are created equal”, wrote the abolitionist William Lloyd Garrison in his own 1833 declaration, was “the corner-stone” of America’s “temple of freedom”.

Women’s rights activists, too, used the declaration’s words to promote their causeand to highlight inconsistencies in the United States’ implementation of freedom. “The history of mankind,” it was declared at the Seneca Falls Convention of 1848, “is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations on the part of man toward woman.”

Jeremy Bentham was not impressed by the declaration’s logic

Not many critics of independence responded directly to the ideas expressed in the Declaration of Independence, but the late 18th/early 19th-century British philosopher Jeremy Bentham certainly did. The utilitarian and future designer of the panopticon [a type of institutional building which represented a system of control] was thoroughly unconvinced by the logic of Jefferson and his co-authors. For one thing, if the “right to life, liberty, and happiness” was so “unalienable”, he asked, then what had justified the American invasion of Canada in 1775, with all the death and misery it caused?

Bentham wasn’t a fan of the philosophy of natural rights, either: he called the French Declaration of the Rights of Man in 1789 “nonsense upon stilts”. When the Americans declared an unalienable right to liberty, he wondered if that meant “thieves are not to be restrained from theft, murderers from murder”. He wasn’t sure about all men being created equal, either. Wouldn’t that mean babies had the same power as full-grown adults? Pure mumbo-jumbo, Bentham reckoned – not to mention a threat to government of any kind.

Frederick Douglass attacked the declaration’s hypocrisies

The British weren’t the only ones to find fault with the Declaration of Independence. Frederick Douglass had escaped slavery as a young man and turned himself into a leader of the abolition movement, when he was asked to speak at an Independence Day celebration in 1852. With President Millard Fillmore in the audience, Douglass proceeded to denounce the hypocrisy of a nation that proclaimed “all men are created equal” while treating more than 10 per cent of its population as slaves.

“Could I reach the nation’s ear,” stormed Douglass, “I would today pour out a fiery stream of biting ridicule, blasting reproach, withering sarcasm, and stern rebuke… the hypocrisy of the nation must be exposed and its crimes against God and man must be proclaimed and denounced.”

Today, too, institutional racism and other forms of systematic inequality may seem to undermine the claims of Jefferson’s visionary preamble. Perhaps the Fourth of July will become a moment to remember the promises left unfulfilled, as well as the achievements of American liberty.

Now every Fourth of July, Monticello welcomes new citizens

Independence Day is celebrated in all sorts of ways across the United States – many of them involving barbeque, beer, and a healthy dose of patriotic red, white and blue. At Jefferson’s mountaintop home in Virginia – Monticello – they have a special tradition of their own. For more than 50 years now they’ve held a naturalisation ceremony on Independence Day, admitting people from all over the world to become citizens of the United States.

When the nation came into being on 4 July 1776, no one had been born a citizen. The declaration was a revolutionary document: it aimed to overthrow tyranny and create a new government through the power of collective action. For all its flaws, it can still today be an inspiration.

Tom Cutterham is a lecturer in US history at the University of Birmingham.


Independent States in the World

NOTES
Note 1: In this listing, the term “independent state” refers to a people politically organized into a sovereign state with a definite territory recognized as independent by the US.

Note 2: Geopolitical Entities, Names, and Codes (GENC) Standard two-letter and three-letter codes. GENC is the replacement standard for FIPS 10-4 and is the U.S. Government profile of the ISO 3166 international country code standard. For more information on GENC please see https://nsgreg.nga.mil/genc/discovery.

Note 3: With the establishment of diplomatic relations with China on January 1, 1979, the US Government recognized the People’s Republic of China as the sole legal government of China and acknowledged the Chinese position that there is only one China and that Taiwan is part of China.

Note 4: “Congo” is the official short-form name for both the Republic of the Congo and the Democratic Republic of the Congo. To distinguish one from the other, the U.S. Department of State adds the capital in parentheses. This practice is unofficial and provisional.

Note 5: Claimed by both the Government of the People’s Republic of China and the authorities on Taiwan. Administered by the authorities on Taiwan. (see note 3)



Comments:

  1. Brasho

    what would we do without your brilliant idea

  2. Hieronim

    Absolutely, the message is excellent

  3. Colvyr

    New episodes of bleach come out so rarely, I even lazyu on blogs .. Author, thanks.

  4. Odero

    This topic is simply incomparable :), it is very interesting to me)))



Write a message