RIGHT TO TRAVEL

If a license is required to do something which is otherwise unlawful without it, that would mean the government is permitting crime for a fee, which of course it can't. Therefore every act you can do with a license you can also Lawfully do without.

Just as traveling is a Lawfully protected right. The only way it can be converted into a privilege is with your signed consent. Which is what the registration contract is. Seeing as it was coerced via deception, as full disclosure as to the nature of the contract was never given, it is fraud, unlawful, null and void from the start.

5) "A motor vehicle or automobile for hire is a motor vehicle, other than an automobile stage, used for the transportation of persons for which remuneration is received." International Motor Transit Co. vs. Seattle, 251 P. 120
6) "The use of the highways for the purpose of travel and transportation is not a mere privilege, but a common and fundamental Right of which the public and the individual cannot be rightfully deprived." Chicago Motor Coach vs. Chicago, 169 NE 22; Ligare vs. Chicago, 28 NE 934; Boon vs. Clark, 214 SSW 607; 25 Am.Jur. (1st) Highways Sect. 163
7) "The right of the citizen to travel upon the highway and to transport his property thereon, in the ordinary course of life and business, differs radically and obviously from that of one who makes the highway his place of business for private gain in the running of a stagecoach or omnibus." State vs. City of Spokane, 186 P. 864
"Where rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be no rule making or legislation which would abrogate them." Miranda vs. Arizona, 384 US 436, 491
9) "The claim and exercise of a constitutional Right cannot be converted into a crime." Miller vs. U.S., 230 F. 486, 489
10) "There can be no sanction or penalty imposed upon one because of this exercise of constitutional Rights." Snerer vs. Cullen, 481 F. 946
11) "... For while a Citizen has the Right to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon, that Right does not extend to the use of the highways, either in whole or in part, as a place for private gain. For the latter purpose, no person has a vested right to use the highways of the state, but is a privilege or a license which the legislature may grant or withhold at its discretion." State vs. Johnson, 243 P. 1073; Homes, 155 P. 171; Packard vs. Banton, 44 S.Ct. 256; Hadfield vs. Lundin 98 Wash 516
12) "The Right of the Citizen to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon, either by drawn carriage or by automobile, is not a mere privilege which a city can prohibit or permit at will, but a common Right which he has under the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." Thompson vs. Smith, 154 SE 579
13) "The term `motor vehicle' is different and broader than the word `automobile.'" City of Dayton vs. DeBrosse, 23 NE.2d 647, 650; 62 Ohio App. 212)

RIGHT TO TRAVEL

 

U.S. Supreme Court says No License Necessary To Drive Automobile On Public Highways/Streets

****************
U.S. SUPREME COURT AND OTHER HIGH COURT CITATIONS PROVING THAT NO LICENSE IS NECESSARY FOR NORMAL USE OF AN AUTOMOBILE ON COMMON WAYS

“The right of a citizen to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon, by horsedrawn carriage, wagon, or automobile, is not a mere privilege which may be permitted or prohibited at will, but a common right which he has under his right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Under this constitutional guaranty one may, therefore, under normal conditions, travel at his inclination along the public highways or in public places, and while conducting himself in an orderly and decent manner, neither interfering with nor disturbing another’s rights, he will be protected, not only in his person, but in his safe conduct.”

Thompson v.Smith, 154 SE 579, 11 American Jurisprudence, Constitutional Law, section 329, page 1135 “The right of the Citizen to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon, in the ordinary course of life and business, is a common right which he has under the right to enjoy life and liberty, to acquire and possess property, and to pursue happiness and safety. It includes the right, in so doing, to use the ordinary and usual conveyances of the day, and under the existing modes of travel, includes the right to drive a horse drawn carriage or wagon thereon or to operate an automobile thereon, for the usual and ordinary purpose of life and business.” –
Thompson vs. Smith, supra.; Teche Lines vs. Danforth, Miss., 12 S.2d 784 “… the right of the citizen to drive on a public street with freedom from police interference… is a fundamental constitutional right” -White, 97 Cal.App.3d.141, 158 Cal.Rptr. 562, 566-67 (1979) “citizens have a right to drive upon the public streets of the District of Columbia or any other city absent a constitutionally sound reason for limiting their access.”

Caneisha Mills v. D.C. 2009 “The use of the automobile as a necessary adjunct to the earning of a livelihood in modern life requires us in the interest of realism to conclude that the RIGHT to use an automobile on the public highways partakes of the nature of a liberty within the meaning of the Constitutional guarantees. . .”

Berberian v. Lussier (1958) 139 A2d 869, 872, See also: Schecter v. Killingsworth, 380 P.2d 136, 140; 93 Ariz. 273 (1963). “The right to operate a motor vehicle [an automobile] upon the public streets and highways is not a mere privilege. It is a right of liberty, the enjoyment of which is protected by the guarantees of the federal and state constitutions.”

Adams v. City of Pocatello, 416 P.2d 46, 48; 91 Idaho 99 (1966). “A traveler has an equal right to employ an automobile as a means of transportation and to occupy the public highways with other vehicles in common use.”

Campbell v. Walker, 78 Atl. 601, 603, 2 Boyce (Del.) 41. “The owner of an automobile has the same right as the owner of other vehicles to use the highway,* * * A traveler on foot has the same right to the use of the public highways as an automobile or any other vehicle.”

Simeone v. Lindsay, 65 Atl. 778, 779; Hannigan v. Wright, 63 Atl. 234, 236. “The RIGHT of the citizen to DRIVE on the public street with freedom from police interference, unless he is engaged in suspicious conduct associated in some manner with criminality is a FUNDAMENTAL CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT which must be protected by the courts.” People v. Horton 14 Cal. App. 3rd 667 (1971) “The right to make use of an automobile as a vehicle of travel long the highways of the state, is no longer an open question. The owners thereof have the same rights in the roads and streets as the drivers of horses or those riding a bicycle or traveling in some other vehicle.”

House v. Cramer, 112 N.W. 3; 134 Iowa 374; Farnsworth v. Tampa Electric Co. 57 So. 233, 237, 62 Fla. 166. “The automobile may be used with safety to others users of the highway, and in its proper use upon the highways there is an equal right with the users of other vehicles properly upon the highways. The law recognizes such right of use upon general principles.

Brinkman v Pacholike, 84 N.E. 762, 764, 41 Ind. App. 662, 666. “The law does not denounce motor carriages, as such, on public ways. They have an equal right with other vehicles in common use to occupy the streets and roads. It is improper to say that the driver of the horse has rights in the roads superior to the driver of the automobile. Both have the right to use the easement.”

Indiana Springs Co. v. Brown, 165 Ind. 465, 468. U.S. Supreme Court says No License Necessary To Drive Automobile On Public Highways/Streets No License Is Necessary Copy and Share Freely YHVH.name 2 2 “A highway is a public way open and free to any one who has occasion to pass along it on foot or with any kind of vehicle.” Schlesinger v. City of Atlanta, 129 S.E. 861, 867, 161 Ga. 148, 159;
Holland v. Shackelford, 137 S.E. 2d 298, 304, 220 Ga. 104; Stavola v. Palmer, 73 A.2d 831, 838, 136 Conn. 670 “There can be no question of the right of automobile owners to occupy and use the public streets of cities, or highways in the rural districts.” Liebrecht v. Crandall, 126 N.W. 69, 110 Minn. 454, 456 “The word ‘automobile’ connotes a pleasure vehicle designed for the transportation of persons on highways.”

-American Mutual Liability Ins. Co., vs. Chaput, 60 A.2d 118, 120; 95 NH 200 Motor Vehicle: 18 USC Part 1 Chapter 2 section 31 definitions: “(6) Motor vehicle. – The term “motor vehicle” means every description of carriage or other contrivance propelled or drawn by mechanical power and used for commercial purposes on the highways…” 10) The term “used for commercial purposes” means the carriage of persons or property for any fare, fee, rate, charge or other consideration, or directly or indirectly in connection with any business, or other undertaking intended for profit. “A motor vehicle or automobile for hire is a motor vehicle, other than an automobile stage, used for the transportation of persons for which remuneration is received.”-International Motor Transit Co. vs. Seattle, 251 P. 120 The term ‘motor vehicle’ is different and broader than the word ‘automobile.’”

-City of Dayton vs. DeBrosse, 23 NE.2d 647, 650; 62 Ohio App. 232 “Thus self-driven vehicles are classified according to the use to which they are put rather than according to the means by which they are propelled” – Ex Parte Hoffert, 148 NW 20 ”

The Supreme Court, in Arthur v. Morgan, 112 U.S. 495, 5 S.Ct. 241, 28 L.Ed. 825, held that carriages were properly classified as household effects, and we see no reason that automobiles should not be similarly disposed of.”

Hillhouse v United States, 152 F. 163, 164 (2nd Cir. 1907). “…a citizen has the right to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon…” State vs. Johnson, 243 P. 1073; Cummins vs. Homes, 155 P. 171; Packard vs. Banton, 44 S.Ct. 256; Hadfield vs. Lundin, 98 Wash 516, Willis vs. Buck, 263 P. l 982;
Barney vs. Board of Railroad Commissioners, 17 P.2d 82 “The use of the highways for the purpose of travel and transportation is not a mere privilege, but a common and fundamental Right of which the public and the individual cannot be rightfully deprived.”

Chicago Motor Coach vs. Chicago, 169 NE 22; Ligare vs. Chicago, 28 NE 934; Boon vs. Clark, 214 SSW 607; 25 Am.Jur. (1st) Highways Sect.163 “the right of the Citizen to travel upon the highway and to transport his property thereon in the ordinary course of life and business… is the usual and ordinary right of the Citizen, a right common to all.” –
Ex Parte Dickey, (Dickey vs. Davis), 85 SE 781 “Every Citizen has an unalienable RIGHT to make use of the public highways of the state; every Citizen has full freedom to travel from place to place in the enjoyment of life and liberty.” People v. Nothaus, 147 Colo. 210. “No State government entity has the power to allow or deny passage on the highways, byways, nor waterways… transporting his vehicles and personal property for either recreation or business, but by being subject only to local regulation i.e., safety, caution, traffic lights, speed limits, etc. Travel is not a privilege requiring licensing, vehicle registration, or forced insurances.”

Chicago Coach Co. v. City of Chicago, 337 Ill. 200, 169 N.E. 22. “Traffic infractions are not a crime.” People v. Battle “Persons faced with an unconstitutional licensing law which purports to require a license as a prerequisite to exercise of right… may ignore the law and engage with impunity in exercise of such right.”

Shuttlesworth v. Birmingham 394 U.S. 147 (1969). U.S. Supreme Court says No License Necessary To Drive Automobile On Public Highways/Streets No License Is Necessary Copy and Share Freely YHVH.name 3 “The word ‘operator’ shall not include any person who solely transports his own property and who transports no persons or property for hire or compensation.”

Statutes at Large California Chapter 412 p.83 “Highways are for the use of the traveling public, and all have the right to use them in a reasonable and proper manner; the use thereof is an inalienable right of every citizen.” Escobedo v. State 35 C2d 870 in 8 Cal Jur 3d p.27 “RIGHT — A legal RIGHT, a constitutional RIGHT means a RIGHT protected by the law, by the constitution, but government does not create the idea of RIGHT or original RIGHTS; it acknowledges them. . . “ Bouvier’s Law Dictionary, 1914, p. 2961. “Those who have the right to do something cannot be licensed for what they already have right to do as such license would be meaningless.”

City of Chicago v Collins 51 NE 907, 910. “A license means leave to do a thing which the licensor could prevent.” Blatz Brewing Co. v. Collins, 160 P.2d 37, 39; 69 Cal. A. 2d 639. “The object of a license is to confer a right or power, which does not exist without it.”

Payne v. Massey (19__) 196 SW 2nd 493, 145 Tex 273. “The court makes it clear that a license relates to qualifications to engage in profession, business, trade or calling; thus, when merely traveling without compensation or profit, outside of business enterprise or adventure with the corporate state, no license is required of the natural individual traveling for personal business, pleasure and transportation.”

Wingfield v. Fielder 2d Ca. 3d 213 (1972). “If [state] officials construe a vague statute unconstitutionally, the citizen may take them at their word, and act on the assumption that the statute is void.” –
Shuttlesworth v. Birmingham 394 U.S. 147 (1969). “With regard particularly to the U.S. Constitution, it is elementary that a Right secured or protected by that document cannot be overthrown or impaired by any state police authority.” Donnolly vs. Union Sewer Pipe Co., 184 US 540; Lafarier vs. Grand Trunk R.R. Co., 24 A. 848; O’Neil vs. Providence Amusement Co., 108 A. 887. “The right to travel (called the right of free ingress to other states, and egress from them) is so fundamental that it appears in the Articles of Confederation, which governed our society before the Constitution.”

(Paul v. Virginia). “[T]he right to travel freely from State to State … is a right broadly assertable against private interference as well as governmental action. Like the right of association, it is a virtually unconditional personal right, guaranteed by the Constitution to us all.” (U.S. Supreme Court,
Shapiro v. Thompson). EDGERTON, Chief Judge: “Iron curtains have no place in a free world. …’Undoubtedly the right of locomotion, the right to remove from one place to another according to inclination, is an attribute of personal liberty, and the right, ordinarily, of free transit from or through the territory of any State is a right secured by the Constitution.’
Williams v. Fears, 179 U.S. 270, 274, 21 S.Ct. 128, 45 L.Ed. 186. “Our nation has thrived on the principle that, outside areas of plainly harmful conduct, every American is left to shape his own life as he thinks best, do what he pleases, go where he pleases.” Id., at 197.
Kent vs. Dulles see Vestal, Freedom of Movement, 41 Iowa L.Rev. 6, 13—14. “The validity of restrictions on the freedom of movement of particular individuals, both substantively and procedurally, is precisely the sort of matter that is the peculiar domain of the courts.” Comment, 61 Yale L.J. at page 187. “a person detained for an investigatory stop can be questioned but is “not obliged to answer, answers may not be compelled, and refusal to answer furnishes no basis for an arrest.”Justice White, Hiibel “Automobiles have the right to use the highways of the State on an equal footing with other vehicles.”

Cumberland Telephone. & Telegraph Co. v Yeiser 141 Kentucy 15. “Each citizen has the absolute right to choose for himself the mode of conveyance he desires, whether it be by wagon or carriage, by horse, motor or electric car, or by bicycle, or astride of a horse, subject to the sole condition that he will observe all those requirements that are known as the law of the road.”

Swift v City of Topeka, 43 U.S. Supreme Court says No License Necessary To Drive Automobile On Public Highways/Streets No License Is Necessary Copy and Share Freely YHVH.name 4 Kansas 671, 674. The Supreme Court said in U.S. v Mersky (1960) 361 U.S. 431: An administrative regulation, of course, is not a “statute.” A traveler on foot has the same right to use of the public highway as an automobile or any other vehicle.
Cecchi v. Lindsay, 75 Atl. 376, 377, 1 Boyce (Del.) 185. Automotive vehicles are lawful means of conveyance and have equal rights upon the streets with horses and carriages.
Chicago Coach Co. v. City of Chicago, 337 Ill. 200, 205; See also: Christy v. Elliot, 216 Ill. 31; Ward v. Meredith, 202 Ill. 66; Shinkle v. McCullough, 116 Ky. 960; Butler v. Cabe, 116 Ark. 26, 28-29. …automobiles are lawful vehicles and have equal rights on the highways with horses and carriages. Daily v. Maxwell, 133 S.W. 351, 354.
Matson v. Dawson, 178 N.W. 2d 588, 591. A farmer has the same right to the use of the highways of the state, whether on foot or in a motor vehicle, as any other citizen.
Draffin v. Massey, 92 S.E.2d 38, 42. Persons may lawfully ride in automobiles, as they may lawfully ride on bicycles. Doherty v. Ayer, 83 N.E. 677, 197 Mass. 241, 246;
Molway v. City of Chicago, 88 N.E. 485, 486, 239 Ill. 486; Smiley v. East St. Louis Ry. Co., 100 N.E. 157, 158. “A soldier’s personal automobile is part of his ‘household goods[.]’
U.S. v Bomar, C.A.5(Tex.), 8 F.3d 226, 235” 19A Words and Phrases – Permanent Edition (West) pocket part 94. “[I]t is a jury question whether … an automobile … is a motor vehicle[.]”

United States v Johnson, 718 F.2d 1317, 1324 (5th Cir. 1983). Other right to use an automobile cases: –
EDWARDS VS. CALIFORNIA, 314 U.S. 160 –
TWINING VS NEW JERSEY, 211 U.S. 78 – WILLIAMS VS. FEARS, 179 U.S. 270, AT 274 – CRANDALL VS. NEVADA, 6 WALL. 35, AT 43-44 – THE PASSENGER CASES, 7 HOWARD 287, AT 492 – U.S. VS. GUEST, 383 U.S. 745, AT 757-758 (1966) –
GRIFFIN VS. BRECKENRIDGE, 403 U.S. 88, AT 105-106 (1971) – CALIFANO VS. TORRES, 435 U.S. 1, AT 4, note 6 –
SHAPIRO VS. THOMPSON, 394 U.S. 618 (1969) – CALIFANO VS. AZNAVORIAN, 439 U.S. 170, AT 176 (1978) Look the above citations up in American Jurisprudence. Some citations may be paraphrased.

Source: http://wearechange.org/u-s-supreme-court-says-no-license-necessary-to-drive-automobile-on-public-highwaysstreets/

***************

RIGHT TO TRAVEL

 

CALIFORNIA CIVIL CODE 3527. The law helps the vigilant, before those who sleep on their rights.

   

"A statute does not trump the Constitution."

People v. Ortiz, (1995) 32 Cal.App.4th at p. 292, fn. 2

Conway v. Pasadena Humane Society (1996) 45 Cal.App.4th 163

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, v. JERRY ARBERT POOL, C.A. No. 09-10303,

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

(Opinion filed September 14, 2010), On Appeal From The United States District Court For The Eastern District of California

  

"A statutory privilege cannot override a defendant's constitutional right."

People v. Reber, (1986) 177 Cal.App.3d. 523 [223 Cal.Rptr.

139}; Vela v. Superior Ct, 208 Cal.App.3d. 141 [255 Cal.Rptr. 921],

however, "the judiciary has a solemn obligation to insure that the constitutional right of an accused to a fair trial is realized. If that right would be thwarted by enforcement of a statute, the state ...must yield."

Vela v. Superior Ct., 208 Cal.App.3d. 141 [255 Cal.Rptr. 921

  

Obviously, administrative agencies, like police officers must obey the Constitution and may not deprive persons of constitutional rights.

Southern Pac. Transportation Co. v. Public Utilities Com., 18 Cal.3d 308 [S.F. No. 23217. Supreme Court of California. November 23, 1976.]

  

If evidence of a fact is clear, positive, un-contradicted and of such nature it cannot rationally be disbelieved, the court must instruct that fact has been established as a matter of law.

Roberts v. Del Monte Properties Co., 111 CA2d. 69 (1952)

  

If they can get you asking the wrong questions, they don't have to worry about answers. 

Thomas Pynchon 

  

They will do whatever we let them get away with. 

Joseph Heller 

   For more information: https://www.facebook.com/groups/suijurislaw/

WASHINGTON'S FAREWELL ADDRESS

WA S H I NGTON’S

FAREWELL ADDRESS

TO THE PEOPLE

OF THE UNITED STATES

106TH CONGRESS 2ND SESSION

SENATE DOCUMENT

NO. 106–21, WASHINGTON, 2000

 

INTRODUCTION

Prepared by the United States Senate Historical Office

In September 1796, worn out by burdens of the presidency and attacks

of political foes, George Washington announced his decision not to seek

a third term. With the assistance of Alexander Hamilton and James

Madison, Washington composed in a “Farewell Address” his political

testament to the nation. Designed to inspire and guide future genera-

tions, the address also set forth Washington’s defense of his administra-

tion’s record and embodied a classic statement of Federalist doctrine.

Washington’s principal concern was for the safety of the eight-year-

old Constitution. He believed that the stability of the Republic was

threatened by the forces of geographical sectionalism, political faction-

alism, and interference by foreign powers in the nation’s domestic af-

fairs. He urged Americans to subordinate sectional jealousies to com-

mon national interests. Writing at a time before political parties had

become accepted as vital extraconstitutional, opinion-focusing agen-

cies, Washington feared that they carried the seeds of the nation’s de-

struction through petty factionalism. Although Washington was in no

sense the father of American isolationism, since he recognized the ne-

cessity of temporary associations for “extraordinary emergencies,” he

did counsel against the establishment of “permanent alliances with

other countries,” connections that he warned would inevitably be sub-

versive of America’s national interest.

Washington did not publicly deliver his Farewell Address. It first ap-

peared on September 19, 1796, in the Philadelphia Daily American

Advertiser and then in papers around the country.

In January 1862, with the Constitution endangered by civil war, a thou-

sand citizens of Philadelphia petitioned Congress to commemorate the

forthcoming 130th anniversary of George Washington’s birth by provid-

ing that “the Farewell Address of Washington be read aloud on the morn-

ing of that day in one or the other of the Houses of Congress.

”

Both houses agreed and assembled in the House of Representatives

’chamber on February 22, 1862, where Secretary of the Senate John W. Forney

“ren-dered  'The Farewell Address’ very effectively,” as one observer recalled.

 

The practice of reading the Farewell Address did not immediately be-

come a tradition. The address was first read in regular legislative ses-

sions of the Senate in 1888 and the House in 1899. (The House continued

the practice until 1984.) Since 1893 the Senate has observed

Washingtons birthday by selecting one of its members to read the

Farewell Address. The assignment alternates between members of each

political party. At the conclusion of each reading, the appointed sena-

tor inscribes his or her name and brief remarks in a black, leather-

bound book maintained by the secretary of the Senate.

The version of the address printed here is taken from the original of

the final manuscript in the New York Public Library provided courtesy

of The Papers of George Washington. The only changes have been to

modernize spelling, capitalization, and punctuation.

 

 

[

1

]

WASHINGTON

’

S FAREWELL

ADDRESS

To the people of the United States

❧

Friends and Fellow-Citizens: The period for a

new election of a citizen to administer the execu-

tive government of the United States being not far

distant, and the time actually arrived when your

thoughts must be employed in designating the per-

son who is to be clothed with that important trust,

it appears to me proper, especially as it may con-

duce to a more distinct expression of the public

voice, that I should now apprise you of the resolu-

tion I have formed, to decline being considered

among the number of those out of whom a choice

is to be made.

I beg you at the same time to do me the justice to

be assured that this resolution has not been taken

without a strict regard to all the considerations ap-

pertaining to the relation which binds a dutiful citi-

zen to his country—.......

 

......

Towards the preservation of your government

and the permanency of your present happy state, it

is requisite not only that you steadily discounte-

nance irregular oppositions to its acknowledged au-

thority but also that you resist with care the spirit of

innovation upon its principles, however specious

the pretexts. One method of assault may be to ef-

fect in the forms of the Constitution alterations

which will impair the energy of the system and thus

to undermine what cannot be directly overthrown.

In all the changes to which you may be invited, re-

member that time and habit are at least as neces-

sary to fix the true character of governments as of

other human institutions, that experience is the

surest standard by which to test the real tendency

of the existing constitution of a country, that facil-

ity in changes upon the credit of mere hypotheses

and opinion exposes to perpetual change from the

endless variety of hypotheses and opinion; and re-

member, especially, that for the efficient manage-

ment of your common interests in a country so ex-

tensive as ours, a government of as much vigor as is

consistent with the perfect security of liberty is in-

dispensable; liberty itself will find in such a govern

ment, with powers properly distributed and ad-

justed, its surest guardian. It is indeed little else

than a name, where the government is too feeble

to withstand the enterprises of faction, to confine

each member of the society within the limits pre-

scribed by the laws, and to maintain all in the se-

cure and tranquil enjoyment of the rights of person

and property.

I have already intimated to you the danger of

parties in the state, with particular reference to the

founding of them on geographical discriminations.

Let me now take a more comprehensive view and

warn you in the most solemn manner against the

baneful effects of the spirit of party, generally.

This spirit, unfortunately, is inseparable from our

nature, having its root in the strongest passions of

the human mind. It exists under different shapes in

all governments, more or less stifled, controlled, or

repressed; but in those of the popular form it is

seen in its greatest rankness and is truly their worst

enemy.

The alternate domination of one faction over an-

other, sharpened by the spirit of revenge natural to

party dissension, which in different ages and coun-

tries has perpetrated the most horrid enormities, is

itself a frightful despotism. But this leads at length

to a more formal and permanent despotism. The

disorders and miseries which result gradually in-

cline the minds of men to seek security and repose

in the absolute power of an individual; and sooner

or later the chief of some prevailing faction, more

able or more fortunate than his competitors, turns

this disposition to the purposes of his own eleva-

tion on the ruins of public liberty.

Without looking forward to an extremity of this

kind (which nevertheless ought not to be entirely

out of sight) the common and continual mischiefs

of the spirit of party are sufficient to make it the in-

terest and the duty of a wise people to discourage

and restrain it.

It serves always to distract the public councils

and enfeeble the public administration. It agitates

the community with ill founded jealousies and false

alarms, kindles the animosity of one part against

another, foments occasionally riot and insurrec-

tion. It opens the door to foreign influence and

corruption, which find a facilitated access to the

government itself through the channels of party

passions. Thus the policy and the will of one coun-

try are subjected to the policy and will of another.

There is an opinion that parties in free countries

are useful checks upon the administration of the

government and serve to keep alive the spirit of lib-

erty. This within certain limits is probably true

—

and in governments of a monarchical cast patrio-

tism may look with indulgence, if not with favor,

upon the spirit of party. But in those of the popular

character, in governments purely elective, it is a

spirit not to be encouraged. From their natural ten-

dency, it is certain there will always be enough of

that spirit for every salutary purpose. And there

being constant danger of excess, the effort ought

to be by force of public opinion to mitigate and as-

suage it. A fire not to be quenched, it demands a

uniform vigilance to prevent its bursting into a

flame, lest instead of warming it should consume.

It is important, likewise, that the habits of think-

ing in a free country should inspire caution in those

entrusted with its administration to confine them-

selves within their respective constitutional spheres,

avoiding in the exercise of the powers of one de-

partment to encroach upon another. The spirit of

encroachment tends to consolidate the powers of

all the departments in one and thus to create, what-

ever the form of government, a real despotism. A

just estimate of that love of power and proneness to

abuse it which predominates in the human heart is

sufficient to satisfy us of the truth of this position.

The necessity of reciprocal checks in the exercise of

political power, by dividing and distributing it into

different depositories and constituting each the

guardian of the public weal against invasions by the

others, has been evinced by experiments ancient

and modern, some of them in our country and

under our own eyes. To preserve them must be as

necessary as to institute them. If in the opinion of

the people the distribution or modification of the

constitutional powers be in any particular wrong, let

it be corrected by an amendment in the way which

the Constitution designates. But let there be no

change by usurpation; for though this, in one in-

stance, may be the instrument of good, it is the cus-

tomary weapon by which free governments are de-

stroyed. The precedent must always greatly

overbalance in permanent evil any partial or tran-

sient benefit which the use can at any time yield.......

 

THERE IS A GREAT DEAL MORE TO THIS DOCUMENT. TO VIEW THE ENTIRE DOCUMENT PLEASE VISIT:

 

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/GPO-CDOC-106sdoc21/pdf/GPO-CDOC-106sdoc21.pdf

 

 

 

 

Executive Orders & Martial Law

The Truth behind Executive Orders and Martial Law

By Charles Erwin
On March 16, 2012 President Obama signed the National Defense Resource Preparedness Executive Order, which “could” open the door for implementation of peacetime Martial Law in the United States. Executive Orders are nothing new. Democratic and Republican Presidents have used Executive Orders to have their way with America for decades. However, the ugly truth associated with every Executive Order signed is Executive Orders are unconstitutional.

What makes all Executive Orders unconstitutional? We need only refer to the Constitution for an answer. Article I Section 1 of the Constitution reads as follows:

“All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.”

The Constitution is quite clear “All legislative Powers” are granted to a “Congress of the United States” consisting of a “Senate and House of Representatives”. The Founding Fathers of our Country made sure no one man could become a dictator while sitting in the office of President. This means Presidents have no “legislative Powers” to pass any of their dictatorial Executive Orders. The lack of constitutional “legislative Powers” to pass all Executive Orders means all Executive Orders are unconstitutional. It is really that simple in a Country where governmental leaders respect and uphold the Constitution—which it appears we no longer possess.

So, why do most “Senate and House of Representative” members allow Presidents to take on dictatorial powers using unconstitutional Executive Orders? It is because the majority of the people in the “Senate and House of Representatives” work for wealthy people of Special Interest instead of the American people. Most members of Congress know “All legislative Powers” are granted to a “Senate and House of Representatives”, yet they allow the President to sign these worthless pieces of paper with no protest. This is not just a Federal issue. State and Local representatives have the power to protect us from unconstitutional laws but they give us no protection. It is as if most representatives in all levels of government have abandoned the Constitution. Our Police and Military are also involved in this epidemic of ignoring the Constitution. After much Media brainwashing and no protection from Federal, State, or Local governments, our Police and Military ignorantly force us to follow the dictates of traitors violating the Constitution. We are literally enslaving ourselves because Police and Military are now trained to enforce unconstitutional laws taking our rights instead of keeping constitutional peace.

Now that we know the truth regarding unconstitutional Executive Orders, let us turn our attention to Martial Law. The following definition of Martial Law comes from Black’s Law Dictionary 5^th edition:

Martial Law – “Exists when military authorities carry on government or exercise various degrees of control over civilians or civilian authorities in domestic territory.”

According to The Freedom Dictionary found on the Internet, Martial Law has been used once on the national level during the Civil War and once on the regional level during World War II. Then again, just because Martial Law has been used in the past it does not mean Martial Law is constitutional...now does it?

The authority for government use of Martial Law on the national level is suppose to come from Article I, Section 8, Clause 15 and Article II, Section 2, Clause 1 which read as follows:

“To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;”

“The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States; he may require the Opinion, in writing, of the principal Officer in each of the executive Departments, upon any Subject relating to the Duties of their respective Offices, and he shall have Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offences against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment.”

Well, we know Martial Law has been used on the national level, but based on the above Articles from the Constitution, the President or Congress have zero Martial Law power to use “military authorities” to gain “control over civilians or civilian authorities” unless it is in “domestic territory” like Guam or the Virgin Islands.

The Constitution states the “President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States”. It also gives the President the authority “To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions”. There is absolutely no authority at the national level allowing the President or Congress to declare Martial Law “constitutionally” by using “military authorities” to gain “control over civilians or civilian authorities” in a union State protected by the Constitution.

This makes perfect sense! Why would the Founding Fathers create a Constitution and Country where Americans are free sovereign Citizens only to have some President suspend the laws of the nation using Martial Law to execute a military coup based on some emergency? The Constitution dictates that the President can call “forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions”, but it does not say the President can use “military authorities” to suspend the “Laws of the Union” to gain “control over civilians or civilian authorities” using Martial Law. As a matter of truth, the term Martial Law does NOT appear in the Constitution. In other words, government has no authority to declare Martial Law for an emergency, or any other reason, because all government authority in every union State must abide by the Constitution. After all, it is the Constitution which binds all union States...right?

There is a reason the Constitution allows the President to call “forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions” instead of using “military authorities”. That is because the “Militia” was made up of our fellow “civilians or civilian authorities” whereas the “military” could encompass Homeland Security, FBI, CIA, NSA, or foreign allied troops from NATO with allegiance to the New World Order (NWO). We can be certain the “Militia” of “civilians or civilian authorities” would not disband the “Laws of the Union” when the emergency was over, but who knows what the “military”, made up of Homeland Security, FBI, CIA, NSA, or foreign allied troops from NATO working for the NWO, might attempt under an unconstitutional Martial Law emergency.

On the regional level, Martial Law was declared by Governor Joseph B. Poindexter in the “domestic territory” of Hawaii on December 7, 1941 when Japanese warplanes bombed Pearl Harbor. It is important to emphasize at the time Martial Law was declared in Hawaii it was a “domestic territory” and not a State of the union. It is true Martial Law was later enacted in California, Oregon, Washington, Arizona, and eventually throughout the entire Pacific Coast of the United States during World War II. What Americans need to realize is declaring Martial Law in a “domestic territory” is very different from declaring martial law in a union State. In 1941, the “domestic territory” of Hawaii was not a union State protected by the Constitution, but the union States like California, Oregon, Washington, and Arizona should have been protected by the Federal Constitution and their State Constitutions against Martial Law.

Pearl Harbor was much like 9/11. It gave treasonous government officials the means to violate the Constitution and take away your rights based on an emergency. Declaring Martial Law in the “domestic territory” of Hawaii in 1941 did not violate the Constitution because the Constitution applies to States like California, Oregon, Washington, and Arizona—not “domestic territory” like Hawaii, Virgin Islands, and Puerto Rico. The very definition of Martial Law declares it can ONLY be enforced in “domestic territory”. Congress has total authority over “domestic territory” because “domestic territory” like Hawaii, Virgin Islands, and Puerto Rico are NOT protected by the Constitution. On the other hand, the union States should have been lawfully protected against Martial Law by the Constitution. The reality is Martial Law falls under the Hierarchy of Laws as a Law of Conquest. If all laws and rights are ever suspended in America, then “We the People” will no longer remain free. If Americans sit back and do nothing, our nation will one day be conquered from within and handed over to the New World Order under the pretext of an emergency requiring Martial Law.
 
As you can see, the truth about Martial Law is it is unconstitutional at the National/ Federal, State, and Local levels because government or “military” employees have no lawful authority to gain “control over civilians or civilian authorities” within any union State bound by the Constitution. So, what authority was used during World War II to allow Martial Law to be implemented in union States? The matter was taken to the judicial system of the Supreme Court where eight or nine attorneys interpreted the Constitution to benefit their fellow attorneys in government. The Supreme Court decided the term Martial Law had no precise meaning. This unconstitutional revelation allowed the judicial system and government to define Martial Law to their liking. The Founding Fathers did NOT create the Supreme Court with dictatorial powers to change the meaning of the Constitution or interpret the Constitution to include Martial Law powers. However, in this unconstitutional United States, we’ve been tricked into believing the Supreme Court is supreme when it is not supreme.
 
Based on the evidence, Executive Orders and Martial Law are BOTH unconstitutional. The Constitution forbids Presidential Executive Orders without “legislative Powers” and the very concept of government employees declaring Martial Law to gain “control over civilians or civilian authorities” in America is repugnant to the Constitution, yet somehow Martial Law was approved by a small group of attorneys in the Supreme Court. It is obvious the Supreme Court ruled unconstitutionally in this matter. It is also obvious we have allowed America to be RULED unconstitutionally for over 100 years, which is what got us into Obama’s National Defense Resource Preparedness Executive Order mess in the first place.

According to Alex Jones and Info Wars, Obama’s National Defense Resource Preparedness Executive Order gives government the “authority to seize all communication (from television stations to CB radios), confiscate all food resources (including farms and farm equipment), take control of all transportation (including your family car), and compel you at gunpoint “under federal supervision” to work as a slave”.

Allow me to point out a painful political truth. Attempting to control America and take away your rights is not just a Democratic concept deployed by President Obama and his Congress. Republican President George Bush (the father) and his Congress set the stage for Obama’s unconstitutional Martial Law Executive Order with their own unconstitutional Executive Order 12803. Bush’s “Infrastructure Privatization” Executive Order 12803 essentially sold everything in the United States to elements of the New World Order (NWO) controlling the International Monetary Fund (IMF). In the minds of treasonous government, since Bush sold America to the IMF on April 30, 1992, Obama can “seize all resources at gunpoint” forcing you to “work as a slave” because you no longer own any “resources”. Of course the concepts of unconstitutional Executive Orders and declaring Martial Law in America is lawfully ridiculous, but it works when most Americans don’t know their rights.

Why are we living under all these unconstitutional laws? The broad answer is we have been betrayed by the majority of so called “governmental representatives” for more than 100 years. Allow me to explain how their “deceptions of perceptions” were implemented in America. In essence, Congress created an additional United States with different forms of laws and government.

The Founding Fathers created the Country United States as a “lawful” Republic under the Constitution for the United States of America. A Treasonous Congress created the Corporation UNITED STATES as a “legal” Democracy under the Constitution of the United States of America. Executive Orders and Martial Law are unconstitutional in the Country known as the United States under its “lawful” Republic, but anything goes in the Corporation known as UNITED STATES under its “legal” Democracy. The trick has always been convincing Americans they live in a “legal” Democracy where everyone’s rights can be violated instead of a “lawful” Republic where individual rights are protected.

I am aware of only one publication explaining how this betrayal took place while also deciphering every legal trick used to take away our freedoms. The name of the book is American Freedom A Conversation with America for “Change” in the UNITED STATES available on the Internet at American Freedom Books. The first two chapters of the book explain the difference between “legal” laws (unconstitutional) and “lawful” laws (constitutional) and can be downloaded free on the website.

It should be obvious to every American what the Democrats and Republicans working for the Corporation UNITED STATES have planned for the Country United States. I think the Founding Fathers would call their plan Treason! Some of our more prominent figures in government and the judicial system are members or associates of the Bilderberg Group, Council on Foreign Relations, and/or Tri-Lateral Commission. These three organizations control the world and are filled with members of the New World Order (NWO) with additional international members in the United Nations. At the college level, we have the Skull and Bones Fraternity at Yale, which currently grooms wealthy Elite children to lead us in government once they graduate. Let’s look at a list of our Presidents or candidates who are members or associates of the Bilderberg Group, Council on Foreign Relations, Tri-Lateral Commission, and/or Skull and Bones Fraternity:

• President Jimmy Carter Democrat – Council on Foreign Relations and charter member of Tri-Lateral Commission.

• President George Bush (the father) Republican – Council on Foreign Relations and charter member of Tri-Lateral Commission.

• President Bill Clinton Democrat – Council on Foreign Relations, Tri-Lateral Commission, and Bilderberg Group.

• President Gerald Ford Republican – Council on Foreign Relations and Bilderberg Group.

• President Richard Nixon Republican – Council on Foreign Relations.

• President Dwight Eisenhower Republican – Council on Foreign Relations.

• President Herbert Hoover Republican – Council on Foreign Relations.

• President George Bush (the son) Republican – Skull and Bones.

• Presidential candidate Hillary Clinton Democrat – Bilderberg Group.

• Presidential candidate John McCain Republican – Council on Foreign Relations.

• Presidential candidate Newt Gingrich Republican – Council on Foreign Relations.

• President Barack Obama Democrat – not an official member of either organization but attended 2008 Bilderberg Group meeting with Hillary Clinton when running for President.

This long list of probable traitors to our United States Country is most likely a who’s who list of high-level government employees working for the New World Order’s UNITED STATES Corporation. They do not seek office to serve; they’re put before us as candidates to act as Special Interest agents of control. Allow me to expose the blueprint behind the recent “legal” (unconstitutional) strategy leading America down the path to permanent membership in the New World Order.

• Republican President Bush (the Father) signs Executive Order 12803 selling America to foreign investors. Many might recall Bush made many speeches while President calling for the creation of a New World Order. His Executive Order 12803 gave him the “legal” (unconstitutional) leverage needed to sell the assets of the United States Country to elements in the New World Order while acting as agent of the UNITED STATES Corporation. The UNITED STATES Corporation is a partner of the IMF (International Monetary Fund), so selling America to the IMF was a lucrative global investment for the UNITED STATES Corporation.

• Democratic President Clinton signs Executive Order 13037 on “Capital Budgeting”, which defined Americans as “Human Capital” property of their UNITED STATES Corporation. Becoming “Human Capital” means all Americans are corporate “legal” assets with no “lawful” rights in their UNITED STATES Corporation.

• Republican George Bush (the son) spends eight years in office violating the Constitution, starting two wars, and shredding our rights based on keeping us safe from terror he and Dick Cheney likely orchestrated on 9/11. Creation of Patriot Act and Homeland Security had nothing to do with protecting us from terrorist. These organizations, along with the FBI, CIA, NSA, and IRS are actually designed to create an army to protect the UNITED STATES Corporation from us.

• Democratic President Obama is elected with the hope of “change” and fails to change anything. Obama continues Bush’s two wars, and later Obama and a treasonous Congress pass the unconstitutional National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) suspending Habeas Corpus and giving the Military the “legal” (unconstitutional) right to arrest and detain Americans indefinitely without a trail.

• Democratic President Obama goes on to sign the recent peacetime Martial Law National Defense Resource Preparedness Executive Order, with no lawful constitutional “legislative Power” to do so, while most members of Congress watch.

Based on the evidence, it appears Democrats and Republicans working for the UNITED STATES Corporation have been setting the United States Country up for a potential military coup for some time now. Obama’s latest National Defense Resource Preparedness Executive Order, creating some sort of peacetime Martial Law, is more of the same treason. The good news is Executive Orders and Martial Law is unconstitutional. The bad news is most Americans, the Military, and Police are not aware Executive Orders and Martial Law is unconstitutional.

On the subject of Habeas Corpus, we need not be too concerned when treasonous courts and governments suspend the Writ of Habeas Corpus. Fixating our attention on Writs of Habeas Corpus is a very old legal trick. A Writ is simply “an order issued from a court”. The VI and VII Amendments to the Constitution guarantee Americans “public trial” in criminal prosecutions and “right of trial by jury” in civil cases where the value being fought over exceeds twenty dollars. The last time I checked, the VI and VII Amendments to the Constitution were a higher form of “lawful” law than a “legal” law Writ of Habeas Corpus issued from a potentially treasonous court. As long as the “lawful” Constitution for the United States of America exists, it will remain unconstitutional for American Citizens to be indefinitely detained without a trial using NDAA with or without Habeas Corpus. If a large amount of Americans become aware of their “lawful” rights we can stand up to the “legal” government. Writ of Habeas Corpus is mentioned as a “privilege” in the Constitution, whereas the VI and VII Amendments to the Constitution are “rights” guaranteed by the Constitution. Lawful constitutional “rights” detailed in our founding documents supersede legal “privileges” “issued from a court” working for a treasonous government.

This is how freedom could end in America—with legal tricks most Americans know nothing about. Treasonous elements of the New World Order own and control the UNITED STATES Corporation, and this entity is at war with the United States Country. In truth, Congress should never have allowed America to be involved in a world economy. America’s participation in a world economy does not benefit 300 million Americans when the jobs go overseas; it only benefits elite Special Interest Corporations in bed with the UNITED STATES Corporation. One world economy leads to one world government, which leads to the New World Order.

Whether America falls to traitors in the UNITED STATES Corporation is up to us. If you’re a member of the Police or Military, or if you know someone in the Police or Military, they need to know how this “legal” Democracy UNITED STATES Corporation versus “lawful” Republic United States Country game is being played. You can’t take a rope from around your neck if you have no idea the rope is around your neck. At the Federal level, we have the 544 members of Congress and the President outnumbered 300 million to 545. With education of the armed masses, including the Police and Military, this is a fight for freedom we should win.

Source: Charles Erwin