Chapter 11: Sovereignty

The issue of jurisdiction as it relates to sovereignty is a major key to understanding our system of government under the Constitution. In the most common sense of the word, "sovereignty" is autonomy, freedom from external control. The sovereignty of any government usually extends up to, but not beyond the borders of its jurisdiction. This jurisdiction defines a specific territorial boundary which separates the "external" from the "internal", the "within" from the "without". It may also define a specific function or set of functions which a government may lawfully perform within a particular territorial boundary. Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition, describes sovereignty as follows:
     ... [T]he  international independence  of a  state, combined
     with the  right and power of regulating its internal affairs
     without foreign dictation.

On a similar theme, Black's defines "sovereign states" to be those which are not under the control of any foreign power:
     No  foreign   power  or  law  can  have  control  except  by
     convention.   This power  of independent  action in external
     and internal relations constitutes complete sovereignty.

It is a well established principle of law that the 50 States are "foreign" with respect to each other, just as the federal zone is "foreign" with respect to each of them (In re Merriam's Estate, 36 NE 505 (1894)). The status of being foreign is the same as "belonging to" or being "attached to" another state or another jurisdiction. The proper legal distinction between the terms "foreign" and "domestic" is best seen in Black's definitions of foreign and domestic corporations, as follows:
     Foreign corporation.   A  corporation doing  business in one
     state though chartered or incorporated in another state is a
     foreign corporation  as to the first state, and, as such, is
     required to  consent to  certain conditions and restrictions
     in order to do business in such first state.

     Domestic corporation.   When  a corporation is organized and
     chartered in a particular state, it is considered a domestic
     corporation of that state.

The federal zone is an area over which Congress exercises exclusive legislative jurisdiction. It is the area over which the federal government exercises its sovereignty. Despite its obvious importance, the subject of federal jurisdiction had been almost entirely ignored outside the courts until the year 1954. In that year, a detailed study of federal jurisdiction was undertaken. The occasion for the study arose from a school playground, of all places. The children of federal employees residing on the grounds of a Veterans' Administration hospital were not allowed to attend public schools in the town where the hospital was located. An administrative decision against the children was affirmed by local courts, and finally affirmed by the State supreme court. The residents of the area on which the hospital was located were not "residents" of the State, since "exclusive legislative jurisdiction" over this area had been ceded by the State to the federal government.

A committee was assembled by Attorney General Herbert Brownell, Jr. Their detailed study was reported in a publication entitled Jurisdiction over Federal Areas within the States, April 1956 (Volume I) and June 1957 (Volume II). The committee's report demonstrates, beyond any doubt, that the sovereign States and their laws are outside the legislative and territorial jurisdiction of the United States** federal government. They are totally outside the federal zone. A plethora of evidence is found in the myriad of cited court cases (700+) which prove that the United States** cannot exercise exclusive legislative jurisdiction outside territories or places purchased from, or ceded by, the 50 States of the Union. Attorney General Brownell described the committee's report as an "exhaustive and analytical exposition of the law in this hitherto little explored field". In his letter of transmittal to President Dwight D. Eisenhower, Brownell summarized the two volumes as follows:

     Together, the  two parts  of this Committee's report and the
     full implementation  of its  recommendations will  provide a
     basis for reversing in many areas the swing of "the pendulum
     of power * * * from our states to the central government" to
     which you  referred in  your address  to the  Conference  of
     State Governors on June 25, 1957.

              [Jurisdiction over Federal Areas within the States]
                  [Letter of Transmittal, page V, emphasis added]

Once a State is admitted into the Union, its sovereign jurisdiction is firmly established over a predefined territory. The federal government is thereby prevented from acquiring legislative jurisdiction, by means of unilateral action, over any area within the exterior boundaries of this predefined territory. State assent is necessary to transfer jurisdiction to Congress:
     The Federal  Government cannot,  by unilateral action on its
     part, acquire  legislative jurisdiction over any area within
     the exterior  boundaries of  a State.  Article 1, Section 8,
     Clause 17,  of the  Constitution, provides  that legislative
     jurisdiction may  be transferred  pursuant to its terms only
     with the consent of the legislature of the State in which is
     located the area subject to the jurisdictional transfer.

              [Jurisdiction over Federal Areas within the States]
                             [Volume II, page 46, emphasis added]

Under Article 1, Section 8, Clause 17 of the Constitution, States of the Union have enacted statutes consenting to the federal acquisition of any land, or of specific tracts of land, within those States. Secondly, the federal government has also made "reservations" of jurisdiction over certain areas in connection with the admission of a State into the Union. A third means for transfer of legislative jurisdiction has also come into considerable use over time, namely, a general or special statute whereby a State makes a cession of specific functional jurisdiction to the federal government. Nevertheless, the Committee report explained that "... the characteristics of a legislative jurisdiction status are the same no matter by which of the three means the Federal Government acquired such status" [Volume II, page 3]. There is simply no federal legislative jurisdiction without consent by a State, cession by a State, or reservation by the federal government:
     It scarcely  needs to  be said  that unless there has been a
     transfer of  jurisdiction (1)  pursuant to  clause 17  by  a
     Federal acquisition  of land  with State  consent, or (2) by
     cession from  the State to the Federal Government, or unless
     the Federal  Government has  reserved jurisdiction  upon the
     admission of  the State, the Federal Government possesses no
     legislative jurisdiction  over any area within a State, such
     jurisdiction being for exercise entirely by the State ....

              [Jurisdiction over Federal Areas within the States]
                             [Volume II, page 45, emphasis added]

The areas which the 50 States have properly ceded to the federal government are called federal "enclaves":
     By this  means some  thousands of  areas have become Federal
     islands,  sometimes  called  "enclaves,"  in  many  respects
     foreign to  the States  in which  they  are  situated.    In
     general, not  State but Federal law is applicable in an area
     under the  exclusive legislative  jurisdiction of the United
     States**,  for   enforcement  not   by  State   but  Federal
     authorities, and  in many  instances not  in  State  but  in
     Federal courts.

              [Jurisdiction over Federal Areas within the States]
                              [Volume II, page 4, emphasis added]

These federal enclaves are considered foreign with respect to the States which surround them, just as the 50 States are considered foreign with respect to each other and to the federal zone: "...[T]he several states of the Union are to be considered as in this respect foreign to each other ...." Hanley vs Donoghue, 116 U.S. 1 (1885). Once a State surrenders its sovereignty over a specific area of land, it is powerless over that land; it is without authority; it cannot recapture any of its transferred jurisdiction by unilateral action, just as the federal government cannot acquire jurisdiction over State area by its unilateral action. The State has transferred its sovereign authority to a foreign power:
     Once a  State has,  by one  means  or  another,  transferred
     jurisdiction to  the United  States**,  it  is,  of  course,
     powerless to  control many  of the  consequences;    without
     jurisdiction, it  is without the authority to deal with many
     of the  problems, and having transferred jurisdiction to the
     United States**,  it cannot  unilaterally capture any of the
     transferred jurisdiction.

              [Jurisdiction over Federal Areas within the States]
                              [Volume II, page 7, emphasis added]

Once sovereignty has been relinquished, a State no longer has the authority to enforce criminal laws in areas under the exclusive jurisdiction of the United States**. Privately owned property in such areas is beyond the taxing authority of the State. Residents of such areas are not "residents" of the State, and hence are not subject to the obligations of residents of the State, and are not entitled to any of the benefits and privileges conferred by the State upon its residents. Residents of federal enclaves usually cannot vote, serve on juries, or run for office. They do not, as matter of right, have access to State schools, hospitals, mental institutions, or similar establishments.

The acquisition of exclusive jurisdiction by the Federal Government renders unavailable to the residents of the affected areas the benefits of the laws and judicial and administrative processes of the State relating to adoption, the probate of wills and administration of estates, divorce, and many other matters. Police, fire-fighting, notaries, coroners, and similar services performed by, or under, the authority of a State may result in legal sanction within a federal enclave. The "old" State laws which apply are only those which are consistent with the laws of the "new" sovereign authority, using the following principle from international law:

     The vacuum which would exist because of the absence of State
     law or  Federal legislation with respect to civil matters in
     areas under  Federal exclusive  legislative jurisdiction has
     been partially  filled by  the courts,  through extension to
     these areas  of a rule of international law that[,] when one
     sovereign takes over territory of another[,] the laws of the
     original sovereign  in effect  at the  time of the taking[,]
     which are  not inconsistent with the laws or policies of the
     second[,] continue  in effect,  as laws  of  the  succeeding
     sovereign, until changed by that sovereign.

              [Jurisdiction over Federal Areas within the States]
                    [Volume II, page 6, commas added for clarity]
                                                 [emphasis added]

It is clear, then, that only one "state" can be sovereign at any given moment in time, whether that "state" be one of the 50 Union States, or the federal government of the United States**. Before ceding a tract of land to Congress, a State of the Union exercises its sovereign authority over any land within its borders:
     Save only  as they  are subject  to the  prohibitions of the
     Constitution, or  as their  action in some measure conflicts
     with the powers delegated to the national government or with
     congressional legislation  enacted in  the exercise of those
     powers, the  governments of  the states are sovereign within
     their territorial  limits and  have  exclusive  jurisdiction
     over persons and property located therein.

                        [72 American Jurisprudence 2d, Section 4]
                                                 [emphasis added]

After a State has ceded a tract of land to Congress, the situation is completely different. The United States**, as the "succeeding sovereign", then exercises its sovereign authority over that land. In this sense, sovereignty is indivisible, even though the Committee's report documented numerous situations in which jurisdiction was actually shared between the federal government and one of the 50 States. Even in this situation, however, sovereignty rests either in the State, or in the federal government, but never both. Sovereignty is the authority to which there is politically no superior. Outside the federal zone, the States of the Union remain sovereign, and their laws are completely outside the exclusive legislative jurisdiction of the federal government of the United States**.

Now, if a State of the Union is sovereign, is it correct to say that the State exercises an authority to which there is absolutely no superior? No, this is not a correct statement. There is no other political body which is superior to the political body which retains sovereignty. The sovereignty of governments is an authority to which there is politically no superior, but there is absolutely a superior body. The source of all sovereignty in a constitutional Republic like the 50 States, united by and under the Constitution for the United States of America, is the people themselves. Remember, the States, and the federal government acting inside those States, are both bound by the terms of a contract known as the U. S. Constitution. That Constitution is a contract of delegated powers which ultimately originate in the sovereignty of the Creator, who endowed creation, individual people like you and me, with sovereignty in that Creator's image and likeness. Nothing stands between us and the Creator. I think it is fair to say that the Supreme Court of the United States was never more eloquent when it described the source of sovereignty as follows:

     Sovereignty itself is, of course, not subject to law, for it
     is the  author and  source of law;  but in our system, while
     sovereign  powers   are  delegated   to  the   agencies   of
     government, sovereignty  itself remains  with the people, by
     whom and  for whom  all government exists and acts.  And the
     law is  the definition  and limitation  of  power.    It  is
     indeed,  quite  true,  that  there  must  always  be  lodged
     somewhere, and  in some  person or  body, the  authority  of
     final decision;   and  in many  cases of mere administration
     the responsibility  is purely political, no appeal except to
     the ultimate  tribunal of  the public  judgement,  exercised
     either in  the pressure  of  opinion  or  by  means  of  the
     suffrage.   But the fundamental rights to life, liberty, and
     the  pursuit   of  happiness,   considered   as   individual
     possessions, are  secured by  those maxims of constitutional
     law which  are the monuments showing the victorious progress
     of the race in securing to men the blessings of civilization
     under the  reign of  just and  equal laws,  so that,  in the
     famous language  of the  Massachusetts Bill  of Rights,  the
     government of  the commonwealth "may be a government of laws
     and not  of men."   For,  the very  idea that one man may be
     compelled to  hold his  life, or the means of living, or any
     material right  essential to  the enjoyment  of life, at the
     mere will of another, seems to be intolerable in any country
     where freedom  prevails, as  being the  essence  of  slavery
                   [Yick Wo vs Hopkins, 118 U.S. 356, 370 (1886)]
                                                 [emphasis added]

More recently, the Supreme Court reiterated the fundamental importance of US the people as the source of sovereignty, and the subordinate status which Congress occupies in relation to the sovereignty of the people. The following language is terse and right on point:
     In the  United States***,  sovereignty resides in the people
     who act  through the organs established by the Constitution.
     [cites omitted]   The  Congress as  the  instrumentality  of
     sovereignty is  endowed with certain powers to be exerted on
     behalf of  the people  in the manner and with the effect the
     Constitution  ordains.    The  Congress  cannot  invoke  the
     sovereign power of the people to override their will as thus

               [Perry vs United States, 294 U.S. 330, 353 (1935)]
                                                 [emphasis added]

No discussion of sovereignty would be complete, therefore, without considering the sovereignty that resides in US, the people. The Supreme Court has often identified the people as the source of sovereignty in our republican form of government. Indeed, the federal Constitution guarantees to each and every State in the Union a "Republican Form" of government, in so many words:
     Section 4.  The United States shall guarantee to every State
     in this  Union a  Republican Form  of Government,  and shall
     protect each of them against Invasion; ....

               [United States Constitution, Article 4, Section 4]
                                                 [emphasis added]

What exactly is a "Republican Form" of government? It is one in which the powers of sovereignty are vested in the people and exercised by the people. Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition, makes this very clear:
     Republican government.   One  in   which   the   powers   of
     sovereignty are  vested in  the people  and are exercised by
     the people,  either  directly,  or  through  representatives
     chosen by  the people,  to whom  those powers  are specially
     delegated.   In re  Duncan, 139  U.S. 449,  11 S.Ct. 573, 35
     L.Ed. 219;   Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. (21 Wall.) 162, 22
     L.Ed. 627.

The Supreme Court has clearly distinguished between the operation of governments in Europe, and government in these United States*** of America, as follows:
     In Europe,  the executive  is  almost  synonymous  with  the
     sovereign  power   of  a  State;    and  generally  includes
     legislative  and   judicial  authority.    When,  therefore,
     writers speak  of the  sovereign, it  is not  necessarily in
     exclusion of the judiciary;  and it will often be found that
     when the  executive affords  a remedy  for any  wrong, it is
     nothing more  than by an exercise of its judicial authority.
     Such is the condition of power in that quarter of the world,
     where it  is too  commonly acquired  by force  or fraud,  or
     both, and  seldom by compact.  In America, however, the case
     is  widely  different.    Our  government  is  founded  upon
     compact.  Sovereignty was, and is, in the people.

                     [Glass vs The Sloop Betsey, 3 Dall 6 (1794)]
                                                 [emphasis added]

The federal Constitution makes a careful distinction between natural born Citizens and citizens of the United States** (compare 2:1:5 with Section 1 of the so-called 14th Amendment). One is an unconditional Sovereign by natural birth, who is endowed by the Creator with certain unalienable rights; the other has been granted the revocable privileges of U.S.** citizenship, endowed by the Congress of the United States**. One is a Citizen, the other is a subject. One is a Sovereign, the other is a subordinate. One is a Citizen of our constitutional Republic; the other is a citizen of a legislative democracy (the federal zone). Notice the superior/subordinate relationship between these two statuses. I am forever indebted to M. J. "Red" Beckman, co-author of The Law That Never Was with Bill Benson, for clearly illustrating the important difference between the two. Red Beckman has delivered many eloquent lectures based on the profound simplicity of the following table:
          Chain of command and authority in a:

          Majority Rule            Constitutional
          Democracy                Republic

          X                        Creator
          Majority                 Individual
          Government               Constitution
          Public Servants          Government
          Case & Statute Law       Public Servants
          Corporations             Statute Law
          individual               Corporations

In this illustration, a democracy ruled by the majority places the individual at the bottom, and an unknown elite, Mr. "X" at the top. The majority (or mob) elects a government to hire public "servants" who write laws primarily for the benefit of corporations. These corporations are either owned or controlled by Mr. X, a clique of the ultra-wealthy who seek to restore a two-class "feudal" society. They exercise their vast economic power so as to turn all of America into a "feudal zone". The rights of individuals occupy the lowest priority in this chain of command. Those rights often vanish over time, because democracies eventually self-destruct. The enforcement of laws within this scheme is the responsibility of administrative tribunals, who specialize in holding individuals to the letter of all rules and regulations of the corporate state, no matter how arbitrary and with little if any regard for fundamental human rights:
     A democracy  that  recognizes  only  manmade  laws  perforce
     obliterates the concept of Liberty as a divine right.

           [A Ticket to Liberty, November 1990 edition, page 146]
                                                 [emphasis added]

In the constitutional Republic, however, the rights of individuals are supreme. Individuals delegate their sovereignty to a written contract, called a constitution, which empowers government to hire public servants to write laws primarily for the benefit of individuals. The corporations occupy the lowest priority in this chain of command, since their primary objectives are to maximize the enjoyment of individual rights, and to facilitate the fulfillment of individual responsibilities. The enforcement of laws within this scheme is the responsibility of sovereign individuals, who exercise their power in three arenas: the voting booth, the trial jury, and the grand jury. Without a jury verdict of "guilty", for example, no law can be enforced and no penalty exacted. The behavior of public servants is tightly restrained by contractual terms, as found in the written Constitution. Statutes and case law are created primarily to limit and define the scope and extent of public servant power.

Sovereign individuals are subject only to a common law, whose primary purposes are to protect and defend individual rights, and to prevent anyone, whether public official or private person, from violating the rights of other individuals. Within this scheme, Sovereigns are never subject to their own creations, and the constitutional contract is such a creation. To quote the Supreme Court, "No fiction can make a natural born subject." Milvaine vs Coxe's Lessee, 8 U.S. 598 (1808). That is to say, no fiction, be it a corporation, a statute law, or an administrative regulation, can mutate a natural born Sovereign into someone who is subject to his own creations. Author and scholar Lori Jacques has put it succinctly as follows:

     As each state is sovereign and not a territory of the United
     States**, the  meaning is  clear that state citizens are not
     subject  to  the  legislative  jurisdiction  of  the  United
     States**.     Furthermore,  there   is  not   the  slightest
     intimation in  the Constitution  which created  the  "United
     States" as  a political  entity that  the "United States" is
     sovereign over its creators.

            [A Ticket to Liberty, November 1990 edition, page 32]
                                                 [emphasis added]

Accordingly, if you choose to investigate the matter, you will find a very large body of legal literature which cites another fiction, the so-called 14th Amendment, from which the federal government presumes to derive general authority to treat everyone in America as subjects and not as Sovereigns:
     Section 1.   All  persons born  or naturalized in the United
     States**, and  subject  to  the  jurisdiction  thereof,  are
     citizens of  the United  States** and  of the  State wherein
     they reside.

         [United States Constitution, Fourteenth Amendment [sic]]
                                                 [emphasis added]

A careful reading of this amendment reveals an important subtlety which is lost on many people who read it for the first time. The citizens it defines are second class citizens because the "c" is lower-case, even in the case of the State citizens it defines. Note how the amendment defines "citizens of the United States**" and "citizens of the State wherein they reside"! It is just uncanny how the wording of this amendment closely parallels the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) which promulgates Section 1 of the Internal Revenue Code (IRC). Can it be that this amendment had something to do with subjugation, by way of taxes and other means? Section 1 of the IRC is the section which imposes income taxes. The corresponding section of the CFR defines who is a "citizen" as follows:
     Every person  born or naturalized in the United States** and
     subject to its jurisdiction is a citizen.

                               [26 CFR 1.1-1(c), emphasis addded]

Notice the use of the term "its jurisdiction". This leaves no doubt that the "United States**" is a singular entity in this context. In other words, it is the federal zone. Do we dare to speculate why the so-called 14th Amendment was written instead with the phrase "subject to the jurisdiction thereof"? Is this another case of deliberate ambiguity? You be the judge.

Not only did this so-called "amendment" fail to specify which meaning of the term "United States" was being used; like the 16th Amendment, it also failed to be ratified, this time by 15 of the 37 States which existed in 1868. The House Congressional Record for June 13, 1967, contains all the documentation you need to prove that the so-called 14th Amendment was never ratified into law (see page 15641 et seq.). For example, it itemizes all States which voted against the proposed amendment, and the precise dates when their Legislatures did so. "I cannot believe that any court, in full possession of its faculties, could honestly hold that the amendment was properly approved and adopted." State vs Phillips, 540 P.2d. 936, 941 (1975). The Utah Supreme Court has detailed the shocking and sordid history of the 14th Amendment's "adoption" in the case of Dyett vs Turner, 439 P.2d 266, 272 (1968).

A great deal of written material on the 14th Amendment has been assembled on computer files by Richard McDonald, whose mailing address is 585-D Box Canyon Road, Canoga Park, California Republic (not "CA"). He requests that ZIP codes not be used on his incoming mail. If you must use a ZIP code when you write to him, show it on a separate line, preceded by the words "POSTAL ZONE" and followed by "/TDC" or "without prejudice U.C.C. 1-207". McDonald has done a mountain of legal research and writing on the origins and effects of the so-called 14th Amendment. He documents how key court decisions like the Slaughter House Cases, among many others, all found that there is a clear distinction between a Citizen of a State and a citizen of the United States** (e.g., see 16 Wall. 36, 74). A State Citizen is a Sovereign, whereas a citizen of the United States** is subject to Congress. The exercise of federal citizenship is a statutory privilege which can be taxed with excises. The exercise of State Citizenship is a Common Law Right which cannot be taxed because governments simply cannot tax the exercise of a Right, ever.

The case of U.S. vs Cruikshank is famous, not only for confirming this distinction between State Citizens and U.S.** citizens, but also for establishing a key precedent in the area of due process. This precedent underlies the "void for vagueness" doctrine which can and should be applied to nullify the IRC. On the issue of citizenship, the Cruikshank court ruled as follows:

     We have  in our  political system a government of the United
     States** and  a government  of each  of the  several States.
     Each one  of these  governments is distinct from the others,
     and each  has citizens of its own who owe it allegiance, and
     whose rights, within its jurisdiction, it must protect.  The
     same person  may be at the same time a citizen of the United
     States** and  a citizen  of  a  State,  but  his  rights  of
     citizenship under one of these governments will be different
     from those he has under the other.  Slaughter-House Cases

                [United States vs Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542 (1875)]
                                                 [emphasis added]

The leading authorities for this pivotal distinction are, indeed, a series of U.S. Supreme Court decisions known as the Slaughter House Cases, which examined the so-called 14th Amendment in depth. An exemplary paragraph from these cases is the following:
     It is  quite clear, then, that there is a citizenship of the
     United States**  and a  citizenship of  a State,  which  are
     distinct from  each other  and which  depend upon  different
     characteristics or circumstances in the individual.

                   [Slaughter House Cases, 83 U.S. 36 (page 408)]
                               [16 Wall. 36, 21 L.Ed. 394 (1873)]
                                                 [emphasis added]

A similar authority is found in the case of K. Tashiro vs Jordan, decided by the Supreme Court of the State of California almost fifty years later. Notice, in particular, how the California Supreme Court again cites the Slaughter House Cases:
     That there  is a  citizenship of  the United  States** and a
     citizenship of a state, and the privileges and immunities of
     one are not the same as the other is well established by the
     decisions of  the courts of this country.  The leading cases
     upon the  subjects are those decided by the Supreme Court of
     the United  States and  reported in  16 Wall.  36, 21 L. Ed.
     394, and known as the Slaughter House Cases.

                   [K. Tashiro vs Jordan, 256 P. 545, 549 (1927)]
                                                 [emphasis added]

This case was subsequently appealed on a writ of certiorari to the U.S. Supreme Court, where it was affirmed in the case of Jordan vs K. Tashiro, 278 U.S. 123 (1928).

In the fundamental law, the notion of a "citizen of the United States" simply did not exist before the 14th Amendment; at best, this notion is a fiction within a fiction. In discussing the power of the States to naturalize, the California State Supreme Court put it rather bluntly when it ruled that there was no such thing as a "citizen of the United States":

     A citizen  of any one of the States of the union, is held to
     be, and  called a  citizen of  the United  States,  although
     technically and  abstractly there  is no  such  thing.    To
     conceive a citizen of the United States who is not a citizen
     of some  one of  the States, is totally foreign to the idea,
     and inconsistent  with the  proper construction  and  common
     understanding of the expression as used in the Constitution,
     which must  be deduced  from its  various other  provisions.
     The object then to be attained, by the exercise of the power
     of naturalization,  was to  make citizens  of the respective
                            [Ex Parte Knowles, 5 Cal. 300 (1855)]
                                                 [emphasis added]

This decision has never been overturned!

What is the proper construction and common understanding of the term "Citizen of the United States" as used in the original Constitution, before the so-called 14th Amendment? This is an important question, because this status is still a qualification for the offices of Senator, Representative and President. No Person can be a Representative unless he has been a Citizen of the United States for seven years (1:2:2); no Person can be a Senator unless he has been a Citizen of the United States for nine years (1:3:3); no Person can be President unless he is a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States (2:1:5). If these requirements had been literally obeyed, there could have been no elections for Representatives to Congress for at least seven years after the adoption of the Constitution, and no one would have been eligible as a Senator for nine years after its adoption. Author John S. Wise, in a rare book now available on Richard McDonald's electronic bulletin board system (BBS), explains away the problem very simply as follows:

     The language  employed by  the convention  was less  careful
     than that  which had  been used  by Congress  in July of the
     same year,  in framing  the ordinance  for the government of
     the  Northwest   Territory.      Congress   had   made   the
     qualification rest  upon citizenship  of "one  of the United
     States***,"  and   this  is  doubtless  the  intent  of  the
     convention which framed the Constitution, for it cannot have
     meant anything else.
                                  [Studies in Constitutional Law:
                             [A Treatise on American Citizenship]
                    [by John S. Wise, Edward Thompson Co. (1906)]
                                                 [emphasis added]

This quote from the Northwest Ordinance is faithful to the letter and to the spirit of that law. In describing the eligibility for "representatives" to serve in the general assembly for the Northwest Territory, the critical passage from that Ordinance reads as follows:
     ... Provided, That no person be eligible or qualified to act
     as a  representative, unless he shall have been a citizen of
     one of  the United  States*** three years, and be a resident
     in the  district, or  unless he  shall have  resided in  the
     district three years; ....

                  [Northwest Ordinance, Section 9, July 13, 1787]
                       [The Confederate Congress, emphasis added]

Without citing the case as such, the words of author John S. Wise sound a close, if not identical parallel to the argument for the Respondent filed in the case of People vs De La Guerra, decided by the California Supreme Court in 1870. The following long passage elaborates the true meaning of the Constitutional qualifications for President and Representative:
     As  it   was  the   adoption  of  the  Constitution  by  the
     Conventions of  nine States that established and created the
     United States***,  it is  obvious there  could not then have
     existed any person who had been seven years a citizen of the
     United  States***,   or  who   possessed  the   Presidential
     qualifications of  being thirty-five years of age, a natural
     born citizen,  and fourteen  years a  resident of the United
     States***.   The United States*** in these provisions, means
     the States  united.  To be twenty-five years of age, and for
     seven years  to have  been a  citizen of  one of  the States
     which  ratifies the Constitution,  is the qualification of a
     representative.   To be a natural born citizen of one of the
     States which  shall ratify  the Constitution,  or  to  be  a
     citizen  of   one  of  said  States  at  the  time  of  such
     ratification, and  to have  attained the  age of thirty-five
     years, and to have been fourteen years a resident within one
     of the  said States,  are the  Presidential  qualifications,
     according to the true meaning of the Constitution.

                [People vs De La Guerra, 40 Cal. 311, 337 (1870)]
                                                 [emphasis added]

Thus, the phrase "Citizen of the United States" as found in the original Constitution is synonymous with the phrase "Citizen of one of the United States***", i.e., a Union State Citizen. This simple explanation will help cut through the mountain of propaganda and deception which have been foisted on all Americans by government bureaucrats and their high-paid lawyers. With this understanding firmly in place, it is very revealing to discover that many reprints of the Constitution now utilize a lower-case "c" in the sections which describe the qualifications for the offices of Senator, Representative and President. This is definitely wrong, and it is probably deliberate, so as to confuse everyone into equating Citizens of the United States with citizens of the United States, courtesy of the so-called 14th Amendment. There is a very big difference between the two statuses.

Moreover, it is quite clear that one may be a State Citizen without also being a "citizen of the United States", whether or not the 14th Amendment was properly ratified! In a book to which this writer has returned time and time again, author Alan Stang faithfully cites the relevant court authorities as follows:

     Indeed, just  as one may be a "citizen of the United States"
     and not  a citizen  of a  State;  so one apparently may be a
     citizen of  a State  but not  of the United States.  On July
     21, 1966, the Court of Appeal of Maryland ruled in Crosse v.
     Board of Supervisors of Elections, 221 A.2d 431;  a headnote
     in which  tells us:   "Both  before and after the Fourteenth
     Amendment to  the federal  Constitution,  it  has  not  been
     necessary for  a person to be a citizen of the United States
     in order to be  a citizen of his state ...."  At  page  434,
     Judge Oppenheimer  cites a  Wisconsin ruling  in  which  the
     court said  this:   "Under our complex system of government,
     there may  be a  citizen of a state, who is not a citizen of
     the United States in the full sense of the term ...."

          [Tax Scam, 1988 edition, pages 138-139, emphasis added]

Conversely, there may be a citizen of the United States** who is not a Citizen of any of the 50 States. In People vs De La Guerra quoted above, the published decision of the California Supreme Court clearly maintained this crucial distinction between the two classes of citizenship, and did so only two years after the alleged ratification of the so-called 14th Amendment:
     I have  no doubt  that those  born in the Territories, or in
     the District  of Columbia, are so far citizens as to entitle
     them to  the protection guaranteed to citizens of the United
     States**  in   the  Constitution,   and  to  the  shield  of
     nationality abroad;   but  it is  evident that they have not
     the political  rights which  are vested  in citizens  of the
     States.  They are not constituents of any community in which
     is vested any sovereign power of government.  Their position
     partakes more of the character of subjects than of citizens.
     They are  subject to  the laws  of the  United States**, but
     have no  voice in  its management.   If  they are allowed to
     make laws,  the validity  of these  laws is derived from the
     sanction of  a Government in which they are not represented.
     Mere citizenship  they may have, but the political rights of
     citizens they  cannot enjoy  until they are organized into a
     State, and admitted into the Union.

                 [People vs De La Guerra, 40 Cal. 311, 342 (1870]
                                                 [emphasis added]

In one of the brilliant text files on his electronic bulletin board system (BBS), Richard McDonald utilized his voluminous research into the so-called 14th Amendment when he made the following pleading in opposition to a traffic citation:
     17.   The  Accused  Common-Law  Citizen  [defendant]  hereby
     places all parties and the court on NOTICE, that he is not a
     "citizen of  the United  States**" under  the so-called 14th
     Amendment, a  juristic person or a franchised person who can
     be compelled  to perform  to the  regulatory  Vehicle  Codes
     which are  civil in  nature, and  challenges the In Personam
     jurisdiction of  the Court  with this contrary conclusion of
     law.   This Court is now mandated to seat on the law side of
     its capacity  to hear  evidence of the status of the Accused
                   [see MEMOLAW.ZIP on McDonald's electronic BBS]
                           [see also FMEMOLAW.ZIP and Appendix Y]
                                                 [emphasis added]

You might be wondering why someone would go to so much trouble to oppose a traffic citation. Why not pay the fine and get on with your life? The answer lies, once again, in the fundamental law of our land, the Constitution for the United States of America. Sovereigns have learned to assert their rights, because rights belong to the belligerent claimant in person. The Constitution is the last bastion of the Common Law in our country. Were it not for the Constitution, the Common Law would have been history a long time ago:
     There is, however, one clear exception to the statement that
     there is  no national common law.  The interpretation of the
     constitution of  the United States is necessarily influenced
     by the  fact that  its provisions are framed in the language
     of the  English common  law, and are to be read in the light
     of its history.

        [United States vs Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 891, 893 (1898)]
                                                 [emphasis added]

Under the Common Law, we are endowed by our Creator with the right to travel. "Driving", on the other hand, is defined in State Vehicle Codes to mean the act of chauffeuring passengers for hire. "Passengers" are those who pay a "driver" to be chauffeured. Guests, on the other hand, are those who accompany travelers without paying for the transportation. Driving, under this definition, is a privilege for which a State can require a license. Similarly, if you are a citizen of the United States**, you are subject to its jurisdiction, and a State government can prove that you are obligated thereby to obey all administrative statutes and regulations to the letter of the law. These regulations include, of course, the requirement that all subjects apply and pay for licenses to use the State and federal highways, even though the highways belong to the people. The land on which they were built, and the materials and labor expended in their construction, were all paid for with taxes obtained from the people. Provided that you are not engaged in any "privileged" or regulated activity, you are free to travel anywhere you wish within the 50 States. Those States are parties to the Constitution and are therefore bound by all its terms.

Another one of your Common Law rights is the right to own property free and clear of any liens. ("Unalienable" rights are rights against which no lien can be established precisely because they are un-lien-able.) You enjoy the right to own your vehicle outright, without any lawful requirement that you "register" it with the State Department of Motor Vehicles. The State governments violated your fundamental rights when they concealed the legal "interest" which they obtained in your vehicle, by making it appear as if you were required to register the vehicle when you purchased it, as a condition of purchase. This is fraud. If you don't believe me, then try to obtain the manufacturer's statement of origin (MSO) the next time you buy a new car or truck. The implications and ramifications of driving around without a license, and/or without registration, are far beyond the scope of this book. Suffice it to say that effective methods have already been developed to deal with law enforcement officers and courts, if and when you are pulled over and cited for driving without a license or tags. Richard McDonald is second to none when it comes to preparing a successful defense to the civil charges that might result. A Sovereign is someone who enjoys fundamental, Common Law rights, and owning property free and clear is one of those fundamental rights.

If you have a DOS-compatible personal computer and a 2400- baud modem, Richard McDonald can provide you with instructions for accessing his electronic bulletin board system (BBS). There is a mountain of information, and some of his computer files were rather large when he began his BBS. Users were complaining of long transmission times to "download" text files over phone lines from his BBS to their own personal computers. So, McDonald used a fancy text "compression" program on all the text files available on his BBS. As a consequence, BBS users must first download a DOS program which "decompresses" the compressed files. Once this program is running on your personal computer, you are then free to download all other text files and to decompress them at your end. For example, the compressed file "14AMREC.ZIP" contains the documentation which proves that the so-called 14th Amendment was never ratified. If you have any problems or questions, Richard McDonald is a very patient and generous man. And please tell him where you read about him and his computer bulletin board (voice: 818-703-5037, BBS: 818-888-9882).

As you peruse through McDonald's numerous court briefs and other documents, you will encounter many gems to be remembered and shared with your family, friends and associates. His work has confirmed an attribute of sovereignty that is of paramount importance. Sovereignty is never diminished in delegation. Thus, as sovereign individuals, we do not diminish our sovereignty in any way by delegating our powers to State governments, to perform services which are difficult, if not impossible for us to perform as individuals. Similarly, States do not diminish their sovereignty by delegating powers to the federal government, via the Constitution. As McDonald puts it, powers delegated do not equate to powers surrendered:

     17.   Under the  Constitutions, "...  we the People" did not
     surrender our  individual sovereignty to either the State or
     Federal Government.   Powers  "delegated" do  not equate  to
     powers surrendered.   This  is a  Republic, not a democracy,
     and the  majority cannot  impose its  will upon the minority
     because the  "LAW" is already set forth.  Any individual can
     do anything  he or  she wishes  to do so long as it does not
     damage,  injure,   or  impair  the  same  Right  of  another
     individual.   This is  where the concept of a corpus delicti
     comes from to prove a "crime" or a civil damage.

           [see MEMOLAW.ZIP on Richard McDonald's electronic BBS]
                           [see also FMEMOLAW.ZIP and Appendix Y]
                                                  [mphasis added]

Indeed, to be a Citizen of the United States*** of America is to be one of the Sovereign people, "a constituent member of the sovereignty, synonymous with the people" [see 19 How. 404]. According to the 1870 edition of Bouvier's Law Dictionary, the people are the fountain of sovereignty. It is extremely revealing that there is no definition of "United States" as such in this dictionary. However, there is an important discussion of the "United States of America", where the delegation of sovereignty clearly originates in the people and nowhere else:
     The great  men who  formed it  did not  undertake to solve a
     question that  in its  own nature  is  insoluble.    Between
     equals it  made neither  superior, but trusted to the mutual
     forbearance of both parties.  A larger confidence was placed
     in an  enlightened public  opinion as the final umpire.  The
     people parcelled  out the  rights of sovereignty between the
     states and  the United  States**, and  they have  a  natural
     right to  determine what  was given to one party and what to
     the other. ...

     It is  a maxim  consecrated in  public law as well as common
     sense and  the necessity  of the  case, that  a sovereign is
     answerable for  his acts  only to  his God  and to  his  own

                   [Bouvier's Law Dictionary, 14th Edition, 1870]
                    [in definition of "United States of America"]
                                                 [emphasis added]

We don't need to reach far back into another century to find proof that the people of America are sovereign. In a Department of Justice booklet revised on October 12, 1988 (M-76), the meaning of American Citizenship was described with these eloquent and moving words by the Commissioner of Immigration and Naturalization:
             The Meaning of American Citizenship
        Commissioner of Immigration and Naturalization

     Today you have become a citizen of the United States of
America.   You are  no longer an Englishman, a Frenchman, an
Italian, a Pole.  Neither are you a hyphenated-American -- a
Polish-American, an  Italian-American.   You are no longer a
subject of  a government.   Henceforth,  you are an integral
part of  this Government  -- a  freeman --  a Citizen of the
United States of America.

     This citizenship,  which has been solemnly conferred on
you, is a thing of the spirit -- not of the flesh.  When you
took the  oath of  allegiance to  the  Constitution  of  the
United  States   you  claimed  for  yourself  the  God-given
unalienable rights  which that sacred document sets forth as
the natural right of all men.

     You have  made sacrifices  to reach  this desired goal.
We, your  fellow citizens,  realize this,  and the warmth of
our welcome  to you  is increased proportionately.  However,
we would tincture it with friendly caution.

     As you  have learned during these years of preparation,
this great  honor carries  with it  the duty to work for and
make  secure  this  longed-for  and  eagerly-sought  status.
Government under our Constitution makes American citizenship
the highest  privilege and  at the  same time  the  greatest
responsibility of any citizenship in the world.

     The important  rights that are now yours and the duties
and  responsibilities   attendant  thereon   are  set  forth
elsewhere in  this souvenir  booklet.  It is hoped that they
will serve as a constant reminder that only by continuing to
study  and   learn  about  your  new  Country,  its  ideals,
achievements, and  goals, and  by everlastingly  working  at
your citizenship  can you  enjoy its fruits and assure their
preservation for generations to follow.

     May you  find in  this Nation  the fulfillment  of your
dreams of  peace and  security, and  may America,  in  turn,
never find you wanting in your new and proud role of Citizen
of the United States.

                   [A Welcome to U.S.A. Citizenship, page 3]
                                [U.S. Department of Justice]
                    [Immigration and Naturalization Service]
                                            [emphasis added]

[ Next | Prev | Contents ]