Posted by MARTIN on September 03, 1998 at 10:40:42:
In Reply to: Does our governmet still represent and serve State Citizens??? posted by Paul Andrew Mitchell, B.A., M.S. on September 02, 1998 at 22:58:47:
: The notion that there are no Union states
: is hogwash.
: A federal judge just ruled that Texas
: is a Union state.
: If anything, a plastic "overlay" has been
: constructed to create a second layer of
: corporate, federal States [sic], which operate
: as municipal subdivisions of D.C.,
: under the Territory Clause (see Art. IV).
: However, this attempt to impose foreign
: law within the several states, could
: never have abolished the several states,
: because such an attempt is unconstitutional:
: the several states are NOT territories
: of the United States (federal government).
: Only the several states could authorize
: such a fundamental change in state/federal
: relations, and no such amendment has ever
: been proposed. Instead, the plastic overlay
: was accomplished by fraud.
: See 31 CFR 51.2 and 52.2 for proof.
: The Reconstruction Acts were dealt with
: nicely in Dyett v. Turner.
: /s/ Paul Andrew Mitchell, B.A., M.S.
RE; The notion that there are no Union states
: is hogwash. ===============================
I do not recall specifically specifying "union states"
Today's STATES are "UNION STATES" if you understand legal fictions.
In reality the people of the free northern States abolished their States by dissolving their voluntarily assembled legislatures without setting a time and date to re-convene with the purpose of joining the newly created legal fiction U.S., UNITED STATES. Only the people have the power to lawfully establish or lawfully dissolve a lawful government of the people.
There were many "lawful evils" in the lawful States of the People.
Congress dissolved it's voluntary assembly in 1861.
The central government under the law of nations had the right to preserve itself and make war.
To wage war upon a State was treason under the "We the People" constitution.
The United States (singular) became the U.S., UNITED STATES (LEGAL FICTION) under the law of war which is a branch of the law of nations which is roman based law. The CSA was a sovereign nation with it's own constitution and congress. The CSA was conquered by the U.S., UNITED STATES and made subject to U.S., UNITED STATES rule by force of power.
Please specifically specify the context of your word "constitutional".
Do you use the word "constitutional" in a roman based law context in which executive orders are constitutional?
Your case cites are not law and apply only to the litigants in the specific case cited the exception to the rule being the ruling of "lack of jurisdiction" in political power matters.
Post a Followup