Articles
Cases
Donate
| Please consider supporting the lifetime research of Lee Brobst with a charitable donation. Thank you. |
Lee Brobst
lee.eagleeye.brobst@gmail.com
February 15, 2009
USING CONSTITUTIONAL LAW IN ITS CORRECT PREMISE
The following article on the District of Columbia was in part taken from Wikipedia
that I find as excellent source material. The article is designed to put to sleep the
notion that the unincorporated government is a defense against the encroachment
of government when in fact and in law the complete opposite is true.
Main article: History of Washington, D.C.
An Algonquian people known as the Nacotchtank inhabited the area around the
Anacostia River in present day Washington when the first Europeans arrived in the
17th century; however, Native American people had largely relocated from the area
by the early 18th century. Georgetown was chartered by the Province of Maryland
on the north bank of the Potomac River in 1751. The town would be included within
the new federal territory established nearly 40 years later. The City of Alexandria,
Virginia, founded in 1749, was also originally included within the District.
James Madison explained the need for a federal district on January 23, 1788 in the
Federalist No. 43, arguing that the national capital needed to be distinct from the
states, in order to provide for its own maintenance and safety. An attack on the
Congress at Philadelphia by a mob of angry soldiers, known as the Pennsylvania
Mutiny of 1783, had emphasized the need for the government to see to its own
security. Therefore, the authority to establish a federal capital was provided in
Article One, Section Eight, of the United States Constitution, which permits a "District
(not exceeding ten miles square) as may, by cession of particular states, and the
acceptance of Congress, become the seat of the government of the United States".
The Constitution, however, does not specify a location for the new capital. In what
later became known as the Compromise of 1790, Madison, Alexander Hamilton, and
Thomas Jefferson came to an agreement that the federal government would
assume war debt carried by the states, on the condition that the new national capital
would be located in the South.
On July 16, 1790, the Residence Act provided for a new permanent capital to be
located on the Potomac River, the exact area to be selected by President
Washington. As permitted by the U.S. Constitution, the initial shape of the federal
district was a square, measuring 10 miles (16 km) on each side, totaling 100 square
miles (260 km"). During 1791-92, Andrew Ellicott and several assistants, including
Benjamin Banneker, surveyed the border of the District with both Maryland and
Virginia, placing boundary stones at every mile point; many of the stones are still
standing. A new "federal city" was then constructed on the north bank of the
Potomac, to the east of the established settlement at Georgetown. On September 9,
1791, the federal city was named in honor of George Washington and the district
was named the Territory of Columbia, Columbia being a poetic name for the United
States in use at that time. Congress held its first session in Washington on
November 17, 1800.
The Organic Act of 1801 officially organized the District of Columbia and
placed the entire federal territory, including the cities of Washington,
Georgetown, and Alexandria under the exclusive control of Congress.
Further, the unincorporated territory within the District was organized into
two counties: the County of Washington on the north bank of the Potomac,
and the County of Alexandria on the south bank. Following this Act, citizens
located in the District were no longer considered residents of Maryland or
Virginia, thus ending their representation in Congress.
On August 24-25, 1814, in a raid known as the Burning of Washington, British
forces invaded the capital during the War of 1812, in retaliation for the sacking and
burning of York (modern-day Toronto). The Capitol, Treasury, and White House
were burned and gutted during the attack. Most government buildings were quickly
repaired, but the Capitol, which was at the time largely under construction, would
not be completed until 1868.
Since 1800, the District's residents have protested their lack of voting
representation in Congress. To correct this, various proposals have been offered to
return the land ceded to form the District back to Maryland and Virginia.
This process is known as retrocession. However, such efforts failed to earn enough
support until the 1830s when the District's southern county of Alexandria went into
economic decline due to neglect by Congress. Alexandria was also a major
market in the American slave trade, and rumors circulated that abolitionists in
Congress were attempting to end slavery in the District; such an action would have
further depressed Alexandria's economy. Unhappy with Congressional authority
over Alexandria, in 1840 the people began to petition for the retrocession of the
District's southern territory back to Virginia. The state legislature complied in
February 1846, partly because the return of Alexandria provided two additional pro
slavery delegates to the Virginia General Assembly. On July 9, 1846, Congress
agreed to return all the District's territory south of the Potomac River back to
the Commonwealth of Virginia.[Bold large print added]
[Not the fault of Wikipedia, but notice the above article does not say anything about
returning the slaves with their contractual rights back to the incorporated state of
Virginia, only the ceded land back to Virginia. The slaves were considered property
by their owners with no personal rights, thus no personal estate under the law of
nations or the laws of Virginia because Virginia was considered a slave state. The
14th Amendment in 1868 was an executive order brought under the unincorporated
territories of the District that is constitutional under Article IV Sec. 3 cl.2, thereby
evading the issue of whether the 14th amendment was properly ratified. The 14th
amendment freed the slaves and gave them personal rights under private
international law or the law of nations, then eventually under the law of the states.
The 14th amendment also offered the sovereign citizens of the states the same
privileges and immunities under private international law that is also known as the
Law Merchant. Municipal laws of the District simply do not apply under private
international law. It also must be mentioned here that the 14th amendment is also
tied into the 16th amendment.]
Section 1, 14th Amendment.. All persons born or naturalized in the United States,
and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and
of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which
shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall
any State deprive any person of life, liberty or property, without due process of law;
nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the law. (Bold
emphasis added)
The 14th amendment is an executive order (proclamation) Vol. 1 of Presidential
Executive Orders, 2 vols. (N.Y.: Books, Inc., 1944—Copyright by Mayor of N.Y.
1944).
“[T]he term 'subject to the jurisdiction thereof ‘ . . . must be construed in the sense
in which the term is used in international law as accepted in the United States as
well as Europe. * * * The provision of the 14th Amendment alluded to . . . is
affirmative and declaratory, intended to allay doubts and to settle controversies
which had arisen with respect to citizenship.” Francis Wharton, A Treatise on the
Conflict of Laws or Private International Law, 3rd ed. (Lawyers Co-operative
Publishing Co., 1906), vol. 1, pp. 45-47.
Private International Law Defined and Distinguished. "International law, in its widest
and most comprehensive sense-including not only questions of right between
nations, governed by what has be in appropriately called the law of nations; but also
questions arising under what is usually called private international law or the conflict
of law's, and concerning the rights of persons within the territory and dominion of
one nation, by reason of acts, private or public, done within the dominion, of
another nation-is part of our law, and must be ascertained and administered by the
Courts of justice, as often as such questions are presented in litigation between
man and man, duly submitted to their determination." Hilton v. Guyot, 159 U. S. 113.
16 S. C. Rep,. 139. Taken from LEADING CASES ON PRIVATE INTERNATIONAL
LAW. By John W. Dwyer, LL.M.
In his treatise on the “History of Land Titles in Massachusetts”, (1801), James
Sullivan, former Chief Justice of the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court at pp.
337-338 stated:
Personal estate is not fixed to any place or country, and contracts depend on the
jus gentium (the general law of nations) for their origin and their expositions, rather
than on any municipal regulations of particular countries.
It is observed by Justinian, that the law of nations is held in common by all the world;
and that all contracts had their origin in those necessities of mankind, which urged
them to buying, selling, etc. … As personal contracts are founded in commerce,
they cannot rest on the particular laws of one country only; but ought to be the
subject of those principles of the general law of nations, which are acknowledged by
the world.
The laws of the District of Columbia never have or ever will conform to the laws of
the states of the Union under Article IV Sec. 3 cl.1, thus in Pollard v. Hagan, 44 U.S.
(3 How.) 212 (1845), the question of federal jurisdiction was once again before the
Court. This case involved a contest of the title to real property, with one of the
parties claiming a right to the disputed property via a U.S. patent; the lands in
question were situated in Mobile, Alabama, adjacent to Mobile Bay. In discussing the
subject of federal jurisdiction, the Court held:
"We think a proper examination of this subject will show that the United States
never, held any municipal sovereignty, jurisdiction, or right of soil in and to the
territory, of which Alabama or any of the new States were formed, " 44 U. S., at 221
(1845). [underline emphasis added]. [See also Article IV Sec. 3 cl.1 to the
Constitution of United States.]
The person in the New York case below choose not to create any evidence that
would declare that he volunteered to surrender his personal rights by signing
documents that would make him subject to a foreign power thus he remained a
sovereign citizen of the incorporated state of New York under Article IV Sec. 3 cl.1.
Today people sign government documents that are contracts and WHAM O!!, they
have given up their sovereignty under Article IV Sec. 3 cl.1 to become member
beneficiaries of the public social security trust in “a territory” under Article IV Sec. 3
cl.2 and wonder where their Constitutional rights went.
In June 1957, the government of United States published a work entitled Jurisdiction
Over Federal Areas within the States: Report of the Interdepartmental Committee
for the Study of Jurisdiction Over Federal Areas within the States, Part II.
The federal government cannot, by unilateral action on its part acquire
legislative jurisdiction over any area within the exterior boundaries of the state, Id.,
at 46.[Bold underline emphasis added]
The question becomes what boundaries? The above published work was
established 50 + years ago and since that time, the state boundary lines in the
states constitutions have disappeared. The federal government is not the blame, it’s
the people who unilaterally reach into the government and sign those government
documents to become a beneficiary of the government’s public debt.
"If we look at the place of its operation, we find it to be within the territory,
and, therefore, within the jurisdiction of New York. If we look at the person
on whom it operates, he is found within the same territory and jurisdiction”
New York v. Miln (11 Peters)102; 36 U.S., at 133 (1837) [Bold emphasis added]
Notice that it does not say the person “resides” in “a territory” see 14th
amendment and O’Donoghue v. United States, 289 US 516, 537 (1933), to the
contrary; the person is found in the same territory, i.e., a incorporated association
of states of the Union under Article IV Sec. 3 cl.1 as opposed to “a territory” of
unincorporated association of federated states under Article IV Sec. 3 cl.2 of the
Constitution of U.S.
Check out your state’s constitution for where it exists today. There are no borders.
The condition of state of being today is “a territory” as defined in O’Donoghue
above.
Congress may legislate directly with respect to the local affairs of a territory or it
may transfer that function to a legislature elected by the citizens thereof, Binns v.
United States, 194 US 491 (1904). [Are you starting to understand Federal
mandates?] [Bold print added]
The Constitutional guarantees of private rights are applicable in territories
which have been made a part of the United States by congressional action but not
in unincorporated territories Downes v. Bidwll, 182 US 244. [Bold underline print
added]
The status and rank of territorial governments, the Supreme Court of the United
States in the case of Snow v. United States. 85 U.S. (18 Wall.) 317, stated:
Government territories of the United States belongs primarily to Congress, and
secondarily to such agencies as Congress may establish for that purpose. They
are mere dependencies of the United States. Their people do not constitute a
sovereign power. [Bold underline emphasis print added]
Former Chief Justice John Marshall in United States v. Maurice (U.S.) 26 Fed Cas.
1211, stated, at page 1216:
“The United States is a government, and consequently a body politic and
corporate, capable of attaining the objects for which it was created by the means
which are necessary for their attainment. This great corporation was ordained and
established by the American people, and endowed by them with great powers, for
important purposes.” Quoted In re Merriam’s Estate, 36 N.E. 505, 506, 141 N.Y.
479. The American People created the National corporation; the National
corporation did not create the people. As the Preamble says: “We the People in
Order to form a more perfect Union … .”
The Constitution of United States is the master charter that spells out the limited
powers of Government. One of those limited powers given to Congress is the
creation of Article IV Section 3 cl.1 to deal with incorporating states into the Union.
[clause 1] New States may be admitted by the Congress into this Union; but no
new State shall be formed or erected within the Jurisdiction of any other State; nor
any State be formed by the Junction of two or more States, or Parts of States,
without the Consent of the Legislatures of the States concerned as well as of the
Congress.
The main thrust of the Constitution of United States was the peoples unfettered use
of the common law under Article IV Sec. 3 cl.1, and Article I Section 10 and the
absolute rights under the first 10 Amendments to the Bill of Rights. The Constitution
of United States is a common law document, Munn v. Illinois 94 U.S. 113.
The author of this article feels that the case below is so important that I have
repeated excerpts here. I am a firm believer that the courts are not corrupt, it’s the
people that are corrupt by wanting the best of both sides of the law, public and
private law and go to court based upon the wrong premise and the judges go
ballistic then blame the judges.
As the court noted in United States of America v. State of Michigan No. M26-73 C.A.
(1979).
“Before the filing of the complaint and continuously during the Course of these
proceedings, the State of Michigan and certain individually named state officials
have acted in derogation of the vested aboriginal and federal rights of the plaintiff
Indian tribes. The conflict between the state and tribal fisherman is notorious;
scarcely a day goes by without an article appearing in one or more of the state’s
major newspapers concerning the controversy. That it is a passionate issue is
exemplified by a recent wholly improper attempt to influence this Court through the
circulation of petitions amongst sports fishermen which urged that the court rule
against the Indians. The circulation of petitions is an action diametrically at odds
with the methods of access to the courts mandated by the Federal rules of Civil
Procedure. This misguided action gave thousands of people the erroneous
impression that constitutional rights are a matter of popular contest. This was a
corruption of the concept of the Federal Judicial system. In a democracy, many
times people violate Constitutional and Inalienable rights. The United States Courts
exist to ensure guaranteed constitutional rights against the TYRANNY OF
POPULAR MAJORITIES. ” [Capital letters used in original, underline italics emphasis
added].
The court made it very clear that the case was NOT a 14th amendment
citizen case.
The court also went back 12.000 years and stated that personal rights were the
same then as today. The court in essence stated a truism, the law never changes,
its your access to the law that is in constant change. Each person can restore the
Constitution by stop putting demands on government that are outside the
enumerated powers.
What was the subject matter of this case? A written treaty agreed to by both the
United States Government and the Indian Tribes premised on the United States
Constitution.
What is the treaty between the people of United States and the Government of
United States, the Constitution? The Constitution is a written Charter whereby the
people formed an incorporated association under the Common Law that is
evidenced by that document that spells out what the duties of Government are. The
Constitution does not restrict the individual’s right to contract into an unincorporated
association under private international law should they desire. The Constitution
must provide you free access to the law of your choice, or the Constitution becomes
a dictatorship.
A new IN DEPTH Educational experience in the law to make you think BEFORE YOU
ACT based upon the correct premise.
Lee Brobst
Last Updated on Tuesday, 28 April 2009 11:40
