White Paper on State Citizenship

WorldNewsStand.net ^ | 10/04/94 | T. Collins

[Remember_Salamis]

Do you think our Founding Fathers saw the Republic as inevitably collapsing? I do. I think they knew there was no such thing as a perfect government, and that all Government will eventually grow tyrannical. Because of this fact, they put a final stopgap against tyranny in the Constitution: The Second Amendment. Yes, the true intent of the Second Amendment is to RESTORE LIBERTY BY FORCE if the need arises. I'm fairly young (23), and I only recently came to this understanding. Those who understand this are the true patriots. In fact, even many second amendment advocates do not understand this.

There are layers of understanding of our "last liberty":

There are those who want all arms banned, making for a completely docile citizenry and paving the way for eventual tyranny.

There are those who believe arms should only be used for hunting and sporting purposes. These people are misguided and see Guns as merely toys.

There are those who feel that arms are for self-defense. They feel that Americans have the right to bear arms so that they can protect their home and property by force if necessary. Although well-intentioned, these individuals still do not see the full picture. Some of these people favor certain assault weapons bans, seeing no need for a fully-automatic weapon for property defense.

Then there are those who see the real reason: Restoration of liberty if need be. If all other liberties have been confiscated by the government, they can be taken back piece by piece by force if necessary.

*However, I disagree with you on the timeline for such action. I just don't see it coming soon, even within the next couple of decades. I also believe that not all is lost, and the Republic can still be saved by non-violent means. There are many patriots out there that have simply given up and have decided to buy Gold and shotgun shells instead of stocks and bonds.

I see the road to such action going through destruction of the first amendment. Specifically, I am talking about the right to political speech and the right to freely practice religion. Campaign finance laws have are the first step towards that road, but we are far from it.

thoughts???

[NewRomeTacitus]

And no, you are not poor compared to wealthy scumbags who know they're wrong. The undeservedly priviledged preen before me every day but none can take precedence, though I give them all professional respect their positions deserve (even when they don't). Unfortunately I've lost a few jobs because employers picked up on that fact regardless and couldn't stand it. It's on their heads and between them and their God.

These aren't good times for honest people trying to do right.

[GeronL]

bump

[clee1]

I commend you for your dilligent study of the issues.

I am a bit older than you (37); I have always had a profound fascination with history, particularly with Western Civilization and American History. Coupled with that is an understanding of Civics which far surpasses that of the average American citzen - and a deep devotion to the duties required of a good citizen.

You are exactly correct in your interpretation of the 2nd Amendment - the Federalist Papers clearly show the Founder's intent to provide a final way to defend Liberty from a tyrannical government actions. Soap Box, Ballot Box, Cartridge Box, aptly describes this progression in the Defense of Liberty. Also, note the opening paragraph of the Declaration of Independence.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness - That to secure these rights, 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.

That single paragraph indicates EXACTLY what the Founders thought of Governments! Remember, "An armed man is a citizen, and unarmed man is a subject."

The Founders, after long and fiery debate, decided on the form of Government as established in the Constitution. The Bill of Rights was agreed to before the signing of the Constitution because many signers wanted EXPLICIT enumeration of the rights of individual citizens to protect against tyranny. All were deeply dubious of pure Democracy - also called the tyranny of the majority.

The Founders KNEW that their deliberations resulted in a "Grand Experiment". Ben Franklin, when asked what kind of government had been instituted, replied; "A Republic, Sir, if you can keep it." There was also stated the admonition that "liberty requires eternal vigilance". My favorite historical quotation illustrates the Founders basic belief that ALL forms of Government were subject to becoming tyrannical: "The Tree of Liberty must oft times be nourished by the Blood of tyrants and patriots."

The basic issues are the subject of endless cliche's: "Absolute power corrupts absolutely", and "The threats to Liberty come like a thief in the night", and "When they came for me, there was nobody left to help". Again, one of my favorites is: "Those that would sacrifice Liberty for safety deserve neither."

So much for the Founder's beliefs; lets address CW2.

I firmly believe that RIGHT NOW we are teetering on the brink. I thought it was "game over" in 2000 when AlGore was trying to steal the election via the Fla. SC. Thank God the SCOTUS halted that insanity when it did! I was equally convinced that a J. Kerry win this time around (by fair means or foul) would herald the opening of CW2; as soon as he made his inevitable attempts at Socialism. As it is, any major event could be the catalyst for CW2. What happens if Al Quida manages to set off a nuke in NYC? The libs will riot because "Shrub didn't protect us!" and will demand that we stick our heads in the sand and appease the attackers. Can you see real American patriots tolerating that action? What will happen if a terrorist crashes a jetliner into Capitol Hill during a State of the Union Address? Our country will be in chaos, the government will be in total disarray, and the Left will try to use this event to sieze control. Same result.

Forget a major upheaveal in the Body Politic, or attack from outside forces. All it will take to push us over the edge into domestic strife ending in armed insurrection is just ONE overt act of tyranny: one person jailed for exercising their free speech, one law abiding person having their weapons confiscated, one Church closed for preaching the Word, the list of possible flashpoints is nearly endless. We are at a historic crossroads in this Nation, RIGHT NOW! The Country is ideologically divided nearly 50-50; it won't take too much to shove it completely over into the abyss.

I pray that we have bought some time. I hope that GW Bush can interject some sanity into our federal judiciary. I hope some of the more eggregious examples of usurpations of rights can be reversed.

However, like the Founders, I am not very optimistic.

[TheSpottedOwl]

I bookmarked the entire thread to pass on to others. Your link is excellent, thanks for pinging me to it.

I've received an unpleasant education today. Unpleasant because now I know more about what I've suspected, and there really isn't a damn thing I can do about it...at the moment. One last thing that no one has mentioned. For those of you who are younger than I am, or don't have kids, the Federal Government made it a requirement that your infants and children must be registered with Social Security numbers in order for the parent to claim them on tax returns. I distinctly recall the sinking feeling I got when I heard that. I can't remember if I was pregnant with the 22 yr old or the 17 yr old when that came about.

My ex wanted his money back, so of course they all got SS cards....

[sauropod]

Print out and read.

[Old Professer]

If you have a computer and a modem you can connect up to bulletin boards that are dedicated to the sovereignty issue. A very good bulletin board is located in California. The telephone number is 1-818-888-9882 and the line attributes are BAUD rate up to 14.4, Parity - none, Data bits - 8, Stop bits - 1.

Ah, nothing like a trip through the attic on a dreary fall day.

[Old Professer]

17

[B4Ranch]

ping

[robertpaulsen]

The author is a little goofy.

The 14th amendment states quite clearly, "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens (small "c") of the United States and of the state wherein they reside.

The reason for the 14th was that the 13th amendment created newly freed slaves with no status. The states were not allowed to make them citizens (assuming they wanted to) -- that power was reserved to the federal government.

Without status, without rights, the states were free to deny the slaves any constitutional rights. The 14th amendment made the slaves "citizens (small "c") of the United States" (you can call it the first "illegal alien" amnesty program) such that they at least had the protection of basic federal privileges and immunities. To wit:

"No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens (small "c") of the United States".

People argue over what constitutes "federal privileges and immunities", but it was understood to be basic common law rights such as the right to make and enforce contracts.

Lastly, the 14th amendment entended the protectection of basic inalienable rights (life, liberty, or property) and equal protection to any person, not just citizen. To wit:

"nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

So, the bottom line was that the individual states could deny the newly freed slaves (not their offspring, however), state Citizenship status, they could not deny them federal privileges and immunities, due process of life, liberty and property, or equal protection under state laws.

Rounding out the triple play, the 15th amendment gave the newly freed slaves the right to vote, and extended that protection to the state level. To wit:

The right of citizens (small "c") of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any state on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude."

[B4Ranch]

Here's one part that has always stuck in my mind.

>>"I cannot believe that any court in full possession of all its faculties, would ever rule that the (14th) Amendment was properly approved and adopted." State v. Phillips, 540 P.2d. 936; Dyett v. Turner, 439 P.2d. 266. (The court in this case was the Utah Supreme Court.)<<
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/1279555/posts?page=1

In the past 20 years I enjoyed reading the history of the our country and have had attorneys over the years who felt that the citizens got a Royal Shafting from the Legislators when our current criminal code was put in place.

Some words that are used in the laws have specific legal definitions that are different from the common English definitions.

Consequently, I don't think that this was intended by the Founders but was initated by the legislators and courts afterwards. Look at the bottom of these pages and you will see where there is a constant amending to our laws. http://www.washingtonwatchdog.org/documents/usc/ttl18/index.html http://www.washingtonwatchdog.org/documents/usc/ttl28/ I'm sure you understand I am not an authority on this subject, just one who is trying to find out if I should kiss my legislators and thank them for the screwing they gave me and I didn't even feel.

[Iron Eagle]

Who is T. Collins? Has he written anything else from prison? LOL

This is an interesting read, if nothing else. I assure you however, social security -- while a ponzy scheme -- is not voluntary. Nor is it voluntary to pay income taxes.

I am a lawyer in a very large national and international lawfim. We are highly compensated, and we represent people and companies with wealth about which most people only dream. Out lawyers are some of the smartest, most educated, crafty people in the world. Our tax and trust and estates group in particular are excellent -- and with the backing of national litigators like myself -- we do alright.

If we thought there was a way to not pay income tax -- or social security taxes -- or to provide other advantageous to ourselves and our clients, we would already have done it.

Unless, of course, Mr. T. Collins is just smarter than us.

I will say this -- the author of this piece is not dumb -- but he is wrong, and he knows far less than he or she believes.

I enjoy it nonetheless.

[robertpaulsen]

Yeah, I've read articles that have said the same -- that the 14th was never officially ratified by the states. Then again, the following paragraph says it all:

"Further, in 1967, Congress tried to repeal the 14th Amendment on the ground that it is invalid, void, and unconstitutional."

Failing that repeal, can we now assume that the 14th is valid? Geez Louise. The author probably also insists that Oswald didn't act alone either.

He reminds me of the Second Amendment people arguing about the placement and/or lack of commas in the amendment.

As far as your links to the amending of laws, it reminds me of the phrase, "One should never see how laws or sausages are made."

[B4Ranch]

I guess what you are saying is that I should kiss my legislators and thank them for the good times they have had with me and after I'm gone, with my family.

-CITE-
26 USC Sec. 2001 01/06/03

-EXPCITE-
TITLE 26 - INTERNAL REVENUE CODE
Subtitle B - Estate and Gift Taxes
CHAPTER 11 - ESTATE TAX
Subchapter A - Estates of Citizens or Residents
PART I - TAX IMPOSED

-HEAD-
Sec. 2001. Imposition and rate of tax

-STATUTE-
(a) Imposition
A tax is hereby imposed on the transfer of the taxable estate of
every decedent who is a citizen or resident of the United States.
(b) Computation of tax
The tax imposed by this section shall be the amount equal to the
excess (if any) of -
(1) a tentative tax computed under subsection (c) on the sum of
-
(A) the amount of the taxable estate, and
(B) the amount of the adjusted taxable gifts, over

(2) the aggregate amount of tax which would have been payable
under chapter 12 with respect to gifts made by the decedent after
December 31, 1976, if the provisions of subsection (c) (as in
effect at the decedent's death) had been applicable at the time
of such gifts.

For purposes of paragraph (1)(B), the term "adjusted taxable gifts"
means the total amount of the taxable gifts (within the meaning of
section 2503) made by the decedent after December 31, 1976, other
than gifts which are includible in the gross estate of the
decedent.
(c) Rate schedule
(1) In general


If the amount with The tentative tax is:
respect to which the
tentative tax to be
computed is:

---

Not over $10,000 18 percent of such amount.
Over $10,000 but not over $1,800, plus 20 percent of the
$20,000 excess of such amount over $10,000.
Over $20,000 but not over $3,800, plus 22 percent of the
$40,000 excess of such amount over $20,000.
Over $40,000 but not over $8,200 plus 24 percent of the
$60,000 excess of such amount over $40,000.
Over $60,000 but not over $13,000, plus 26 percent of the
$80,000 excess of such amount over $60,000.
Over $80,000 but not over $18,200, plus 28 percent of the
$100,000 excess of such amount over $80,000.
Over $100,000 but not over $23,800, plus 30 percent of the
$150,000 excess of such amount over $100,000.
Over $150,000 but not over $38,800, plus 32 percent of the
$250,000 excess of such amount over $150,000.
Over $250,000 but not over $70,800, plus 34 percent of the
$500,000 excess of such amount over $250,000.
Over $500,000 but not over $155,800, plus 37 percent of the
$750,000 excess of such amount over $500,000.
Over $750,000 but not over $248,300, plus 39 percent of the
$1,000,000 excess of such amount over $750,000.
Over $1,000,000 but not $345,800, plus 41 percent of the
over $1,250,000 excess of such amount over
$1,000,000.
Over $1,250,000 but not $448,300, plus 43 percent of the
over $1,500,000 excess of such amount over
$1,250,000.
Over $1,500,000 but not $555,800, plus 45 percent of the
over $2,000,000 excess of such amount over
$1,500,000.
Over $2,000,000 but not $780,800, plus 49 percent of the
over $2,500,000 excess of such amount over
$2,000,000.
Over $2,500,000 $1,025,800, plus 50% of the excess
over $2,500,000.

---

Study up on "Trusts" and "Family Limited Partnerships" if you wish to take care of those you leave behind!

[B4Ranch]

Here's the link. Bring your own Vaseline!

http://uscode.house.gov/download/pls/26C11.txt

[JimRed]

Bump for later perusal.

[djf]

I know a fellow in Washington state that drives (or should I say "travels") without plates or license.

Last time I chatted with him, he had been stopped twice, and beat it in court. He says after the third time, he can get a court order for them to cease and desist stopping him.

[robertpaulsen]

Excuse me, but this sounds like a personal problem. WTF does this have to do with the 14th amendment?

The Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2001 completely phases out the federal estate and gift tax by 2010. The tax rates are lowered and the exemption is raised between 2002 and 2009, and the tax is completely eliminated in 2010.

Now what's your problem?

[djf]

The car ownership issue is interesting. Somewhere I read in the RCW that by "registering" your "vehicle" with the state you are creating a trust. A trust with you as the beneficiary, and the state as trustees.

[B4Ranch]

If it is not re-enacted by December 31, 2010, the whole thing disappears.

All references to "Section" are to the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended, unless otherwise specified. All provisions of EGTRRA are subject to a "sunset" provision (i.e., they do not apply to taxable, plan or limitation years beginning after December 31, 2010 unless additional legislation is enacted).