Dealing With Cop Stops & Harassment

Here’s an informative video about dealing with cops, at least as pedestrians. The Terry v Ohio case from 1960’s that he mentions, says that police have to have a reasonable suspicion that crime happened or is about to happen, in order to detain someone. BTW, up until that decision they had to have a probable cause in order to detain. So if you don’t act suspiciously, like for example casing a bank, or they have no reason to believe that you might have committed a crime (like when you match a description of some criminal), then they have no right to detain you according to that Supreme Court discussion.

States: Fear All Around

by Idaho senator, Mary Souza

Fear was evident on both sides of the Child Support bill we were called back to consider last Monday for the Special Session. The House and Senate Judiciary & Rules Joint Committee, of which I am a member, heard nearly 5 hours of testimony, and much of it was based in fear. Those supporting the bill were afraid Idaho’s child support collection system would dissolve without passage of the bill, leaving children and families in dire straits. Those opposed to the bill were worried about loss of constitutional due process and opening our laws to foreign influence. Are any of these people crazy or worthy of ridicule or reprisal? Of course not. Concerns and questions must always be respected.

This was a tricky and complicated piece of legislation. Lack of communication from the Administration left important questions unanswered, which fanned the flames of fear on all sides and caused the need for the special session.

In my position as the new Senator from Coeur d’Alene, I talked with and heard from a great number of constituents before the special session. Many were in favor, many opposed, but all were very worried. I studied the bill, in depth, on my own and conferred with others. Then I asked questions of a number of attorneys and, as you might guess, heard differing overall views. There were some consistent answers, however, and several of the most important areas of agreement were:

1. The international treaty on child support collection, which is the root of the federal push for this legislation, cannot become more powerful than our US Constitution. No treaty can.

2. Due process is protected for Idahoans involved in child support through foreign countries, and the Idaho court has the right to dismiss a support request if the other country’s laws are “manifestly incompatible” with our public policies.

3. Since 1996, Idaho has had reciprocal child support relationships with 16 foreign countries without significant problems.

4. Child support collection would continue in Idaho, if the bill did not pass, but it there would be a period of uncertainty and possible disruption, until alternate plans could be put in place.

I voted to approve the bill because of the potential disruption. It passed the House 49-21 and the Senate 33-2. But I remain unhappy, as do most legislators, with the coercive methods used by the Federal government to force states’ approval of this bill. The Feds fueled fear by threatening to withdraw the entire $43 million dollar grant Idaho uses to collect child support payments if the bill was not approved exactly as written and within their dictated timeframe. They also threatened to close our access to the federal database portal used to track the parents responsible to pay for their children.

This just underscores my overall frustration that, too often in Boise, we legislate out of fear… fear of losing Federal money. A significant and growing portion of Idaho’s state budget, nearly 35%, comes from Washington DC. We receive large sums of money for transportation, health and welfare, education and more. And we all know those who give the money hold the strings.

There is legal precedence, however, for states to challenge the hammer of the Federal government when they threaten to remove funding for an existing program as coercion to entice additional action. US Supreme Court Justice Roberts wrote a clear opinion on a recent case about state Medicaid funds. “The States…object that Congress has ‘crossed the line distinguishing encouragement from coercion’…The State’s claim that this threat serves no purpose other than to force unwilling States to sign up for the dramatic expansion of health care coverage affected by the act. Given the nature and the threat and the programs at issue here we must agree.”

There’s more to his legal opinion, of course, but Idaho continues to allow Federal dollars to dictate many of our decisions. To push back would require a show of will and coordination from the Administration, which is not in evidence right now.

Our Founding Fathers were concerned about the power of the then newly formed central government, and feared its future growth could alter the balance of power in our country. Thomas Jefferson expressed this key belief when he reminded, “The federal government is our servant, not our master!”

–

States have become dependent on Federal money, corporations that are mostly concerned with feeding themselves. The views of this senator don’t begin to address the reality of the system, for all Americans.

This poor senator. She doesn’t realize that she had already undercut the U.S. Constitution by going along with the Feds. She wrote this in an effort to try to absolve her conscience before her constituents. Poor. Pathetic. Stupid. – Rathbone

US Residents At War

by Moody Jim Rathbone

More and more U.S. citizens are fearful of the judicial system. This is not without cause. Because of corruption and both internal and external corporate exploitation, residents do not have ‘equal protection’ under the law. Except in criminal matters, residents are guilty under proven innocent. That is the inference of the ‘law.’

An inscription on the Supreme Court Building in Washington, D.C. reads: ‘Equal Justice Under Law.’ Yet, prosecutors are immune to lawsuits while they are performing their jobs, even when they commit illegal acts. (Imbler v Pachtman, 1976)

The reality is that law has become a fluid tool of a ‘fascist state.’  Prosecutors and other agencies commonly file false charges against innocent individuals. In more than 90 percent of criminal cases, prosecutors use extortion by stacking charges in order to force plea bargains. Prosecutors needlessly harass innocent people and use the mainstream media to enhance their cases. Just watch a program like ’48 Hours’ and similar ilk, and you can see the flimsy and whimsy of the cases that pretend to ‘prove’ justice.  In this way, they are able enforce jury pool tampering. They violate rights and break the law with cases that hardly stand up. Thanks to the Supreme Court ruling where case law rules, US residents have had no way to hold them legally accountable. This case law is unlawful and unconstitutional, but that hasn’t stopped them.

It has been argued that the logic behind this Supreme Court ruling was that it would keep prosecutors from having to defend themselves against unwarranted and frivolous lawsuits. What the ruling accomplished was the creation of an elite class that is above the law and can act without fear of reprisal or accountability. The Supreme Court destroyed a covenant that the Founders held dear. Equal justice, which has always been challenged, no longer exists, nor can it.

From simple traffic tickets to land-use violations to arbitrary fines to false criminal charges, anyone can see that this nation cannot claim to be free – as an elite class remain above the law that they have created to control others.

The Issue of Legal Consent

Men aren’t perfect. That’s for sure. Recent times have proved that women are no better. Goddesses of windfall have received a free ride on the legal gravy train in the USA for far too long. Now, this system of abusive law threatens all parents, male and female. Never mind that the sociopathic matriarch of the past has been coddled and fussed over for many decades because of “deadbeat dads.” This perceived situation has worked well to the mutual empowerment of corporate government, as the resources of non-custodial parents are repeatedly ransacked, whether they are capable of paying or not. Corporate government has been only to happy to reimburse itself with all the free money through endless financial authority. State governments are also notorious for withholding money from the very children they proclaim to help. In many cases, this is because the state has already helped to support the children and the mothers that bore them through government vehicles like welfare and medicaid programs. In the view of the state, they are simply recouping the corporate investment that has been mandated by the federal government.

The sins of the system are many. When income changes for any reason, in the good old USA the child support doesn’t. Impoverished and unemployed non-custodial parents must hire an attorney. Child support is never retroactive, except to the detriment of the oppressed. Most judges see to that. In the meantime, many matriarchal sociopaths are relentless in their pursuit for cold hard cash through legal oppression. Family attorneys are only to happy to oblige, as legal costs are “passed on” to the father, whether they can pay or even if payment is never received. Their former husbands and boyfriends will pay, never mind if the money ever exists or could be earned. These women have been taught that they bear no responsibility. They are free to act any way they please, including chasing the emasculated males out of their lives. The state will care for their children no matter what. When you live in the ‘United States,’ Uncle Sam is the sugar daddy, even if a terrible one. The children will be supported, whether right or wrong, now with men as the usual target for renumeration. This isn’t entirely the case because there are plenty of women that won’t be bothered with their children because they would rather have another kind of life. Now, the nation is full of ‘deadbeat moms.’ Never mind the ‘deadbeat moms’ that continually abuse and misdirect their children to make themselves look good and dad look bad. Meanwhile, during all the family drama, the federal government has deeded itself total control over all financial transactions. It has the power to undo every American citizen to fulfill the interests of politics. This power endangers every parent, even every person that works for a living in the nation.

Technically, parents have been emasculated in this age, through the power of the corporate state. In this new empire, the fascist state owns the children while pretending that you do. For when you refer to enacted law, emotions and idealism don’t apply. A heartless corporation executes these laws as morals, ethics, and values go out the window.

Courts do not offer judgment, only legal opinion. The justices of the Supreme Court offer nothing but opinion, which then becomes public policy. The BAR association copyrights these opinions which is misleadingly labeled as the ‘law.’ In the United States, the people have increasingly been victims of legal precedence for nearly 8 decades. Common law is increasingly the rarity rather than the norm. Old grandad used to gloat that possession is nine-tenths of the law. That idea has passed on, along with old granddad! In civil law, you are guilty before being proved innocent, even though the creators of Perry Mason would have you believe otherwise.

The side effect of being a consenting citizen of the United States corporation is that all statutes are applied to you with what the U.S. code calls Prima Facie law. This law derives its authority from assumed consent and more often than not, your ignorance. All branches of government operate under law, meaning that the consent of the governed is automatically assumed in all legal matters and decisions based on court opinion. This view impacts all contracts. After all, what in today’s age isn’t a contract of some nature?

Marriage is a civil contract to which there are three parties- the husband, the wife and the state. That is the perception of the law which you have agreed to through your marriage license. From that time, the state is continually involved in your relationship, a silent ‘partner’ in all of your affairs. This is very basis of the criminal racket known as the dreaded ‘Child Protective Services,’ which claims overarching authority from ‘Health And Human Services’ as it legally kidnaps your children in their ‘best interest’ as it sees fit.

Authority is delegated through ‘parens patriae,’ literally ‘parent of the country’ which refer to the role of the state as sovereign and guardian of persons under legal disability.

Pursuant to the parens patriae doctrine, ‘the primary control and custody of infants is with the government, to be delegated, as of course, to their natural guardians and protectors, so long as such guardians are suitable persons to exercise it.’ – Columbia University

“In other words, the state is the father and mother of the child and the natural parents are not entitled to custody, except upon the state’s beneficent recognition that natural parents presumably will be the best of its citizens to delegate its custodial powers… ‘The law devolves the custody of infant children upon their parents, not so much upon the ground of natural right in the latter, as because the interests of the children, and the good of the public, will, as a general rule, be thereby promoted.'” (Chandler v. Whatley, 238 Ala. 206, 208, 189 So. 751, 753 (1939) quoting Striplin v. Ware, 36 Ala. at 89; Ex parte Wright, 225 Ala. 220, 222, 142 So. 672, 674 (1932). See also Fletcher v. Preston, 226 Ala. 665, 148 So. 137 (1933); and Striplin v. Ware, 36 Ala. 87 (1860).

What about your Constitutional rights? They’ve already taken care of that:

“But, indeed, no private person has a right to complain, by suit in court, on the ground of a breach of the Constitution. The Constitution it is true, is a compact, but he is not a party to it.“ (Padelford, Fay & Co., vs. Mayor and Aldermen of the City of Savannah 14 Ga. 438, 520)

The Supreme Court has transliterated the word “supreme” to mean that these seven appointed justices that pass legal opinion on masses of ‘consenting’ citizens are more supreme than God in an indestructible government.  These justices are not voted into these positions of power in any way by the people, but are appointed by the President of the United States as the head of a government corporation. These self-imposed deities clearly state here that they are the law of the land, and that “the natural consequence of citizenship” is for the people to be under their supreme opinion.

Your only option is to disagree, which means you must NOT consent. This is not an easy road to take as you are boxed in on all sides. Learning how to NOT CONSENT is what the United States was originally built on, but this is no longer the case, since the Constitution is a dead document, rendered inoperative through the invention of legal precedence in the 1930’s. This ‘legal bullying’ may well be the case throughout the rest of the Roman Empire. As the national news is so fond of saying: “desperate times call for desperate measures.” The beginning? Just say no!

The Power of Executive Orders

by Liberty Anderson

Executive orders have the full force of law, since issuances are typically made in pursuance of certain Acts of Congress, some of which specifically delegate to the President some degree of discretionary power…

To date, U.S. courts have overturned only two executive orders: the Truman order, and a 1995 order issued by President Clinton that attempted to prevent the federal government from contracting with organizations that had strike-breakers on the payroll. Congress was able to overturn an executive order by passing legislation in conflict with it during the period of 1939 to 1983 until the Supreme Court ruled in Immigration and Naturalization Service v. Chadha that the “legislative veto” represented “the exercise of legislative power” without “bicameral passage followed by presentment to the President.” The loss of the legislative veto has caused Congress to look for alternative measures to override executive orders such as refusing to approve funding necessary to carry out certain policy measures contained with the order or to legitimize policy mechanisms. In the former, the president retains the power to veto such a decision; however, the Congress may override a veto with a two-thirds majority to end an executive order. It has been argued that a Congressional override of an executive order is a nearly impossible event due to the supermajority vote required and the fact that such a vote leaves individual lawmakers very vulnerable to political criticism.

For many years, the average American was completely unaware of the existence of Executive Orders. They operated quietly in the background of government operation as ‘useful tools’ in the hands of a capable executive for the administration of his employees. Recent attention has been focused on Executive Orders because they no longer operate only on the employees of the administrative agencies of the Federal Government but on average citizens who perceive what appears to be an end-run around the Constitution. This paper will look at the evolution, or development of the Presidential Executive Order and attempt to place it, conceptually, within its constitutional boundaries. Obviously, the text of the Constitution will be the first source of authority to be examined. When the text of the Constitution is unclear or ambiguous, the next most authoritative source is in the writings of the founders themselves. Other sources in the hierarchy of probable reliability may be found in early Supreme Court decisions and works of legal scholarship by contemporaries of the framers.

Essentially, there are three different types of presidential proclamations that may have force of law: (1) those which are directed to the employees or agents of the executive branch; (2) those which result from specific authorizations of Congress; and (3) those in connection with his role as commander-in-chief. The latter are neither numbered nor published and are not considered Executive Orders within the context of this paper.

The first Presidential Executive Order was issued by George Washington in 1789, but no numbering system or uniformity was applied until 1907 when the Department of State retroactively designated an EO issued by Abraham Lincoln in 1862 as Executive Order 1. Certainly Lincoln used the Executive Order in some unique ways due to the Civil War and history has not judged him harshly for that discretion. By 1873, President U.S. Grant had established the form of the Executive Order which is similar to the one used today.

The American Civil War marked a turning point in American law and government. The realization dawned that American was not a land of inexhaustible natural resources, but rather, could be, and was being, stripped of its raw wealth by powerful interests. The role of government shifted from one of promoting exploitation and development to that of regulator and trustee. While this shift does not necessarily do injury to the Constitutional principle of “Balance of Powers,” it was a stepping-stone towards the degradation of the original notion of “balance” of powers. The much more pronounced shift towards Socialism emerged largely as a result of the Great Depression in the 1930’s when, “. . . [t]he concept became widely accepted at all levels of American life- ‘downtrodden masses’ as well as the educated elite- that it was desirable for the government to take care of its citizens and to protect them in their economic affairs.” It was within this time frame that the seeds of Socialism began to take root. Americans placed their confidence and hope in a “benevolent” government whose control of the marketplace might alleviate their economic woes.

“The revolutionary generation had been suspicious of any governmental power. The generation of the Gilded Age was still suspicious of imbalance of power. But significant segments of the public saw danger, not merely from one but from various sides: not only from government, but from populists, or trusts, or farmers, or the urban proletariat.” There is debate among scholars as to whether this shift was driven by an ideological agenda to change government or simply a natural response to the changing dynamics of national growth. To be sure, enterprising politicians read the handwriting on the wall and capitalized on the public sentiment.

“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.” Art. 1, §1 of the U.S. Constitution. Congress shall have the power. . .To make rules for the government. . .” Art. 1, § 8, para 14, U.S. Constitution Congress shall have the power. . . To make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the government of the United States or in any department or officer thereof.” Art. 1, § 8, para18, U.S. Constitution

From the foregoing, it is evident that the express language of the Constitution authorizes Congress to “make” the laws both “necessary” and “proper” to execute “all other powers” which are properly the domain of the federal government.

Article 1, § 9 contains a short list of restrictions which may be read to apply either to Congress, the President, or both. It follows immediately after the “necessary and proper” clause and immediately before Article 1, § 10 which specifically limits certain actions of the various states so it is obviously intended to place limitations on the federal power whether directly exercised by the branches or indirectly, through delegated authority.

Article II describes the authority of the Executive and a careful reading of this section is very illuminating. Given the clear description of the law-making process in article 1, we see the President’s role in that law-making process as having the veto power in order to force “marginal” laws to be more fully considered. The President does not have authority to “make” laws that are “necessary and proper for carrying into execution” the laws passed by Congress. That is the responsibility of Congress alone. The president is to carry out (execute) the laws within Constitutional limitations pertaining to ALL federal authority, NOT just the Executive branch. However, within the narrow language of the document, very little actual power is expressly granted to the President of the United States by the Constitution for peacetime, domestic administration of government. This is not meant to suggest that the President is a mere figurehead, for it was anticipated that he would be a man of considerable knowledge and influence. Additional powers may be inferred from the scope of diplomatic functions which fall upon the President. For example, his office meets with dignitaries and foreign heads of state and American foreign policy is principally his to formulate and carry out. His most important domestic functions, at least those functions to which the Constitution expressly alludes, are subject to “advice and consent” of the Senate. That phrase is designed to properly check the executive power. Otherwise, America would more closely resemble a monarchy; the very form of government our founders were trying to prevent. In any event, every exercise of authority by the president is subject to the oath of loyalty the president is required to utter, the language of which is specifically stated in Art.2, § 1, para 7.

No exact formula for defining the Presidential power is crystal clear from the Constitution itself and the conclusions drawn must rely on the context of the document and the extrinsic evidence. In the latter category, it is fortunate that we have preserved the original articles written by James Madison, Alexander Hamilton, and John Jay in which the arguments for, and against, the Constitution were discussed. One can do no better than to turn to the sources who helped write, or greatly influenced, the original document.

On the subject of federal authority, James Madison wrote, “The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce. . . The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement and prosperity of the State.”

But what if the Federal Government, under the guise of national emergency and with nothing but the pseudo-authority of Executive Orders, were to attempt to circumvent the Constitution? Who could imagine such a preposterous thing? Well, the likes of Patrick Henry, to name one, and other anti-Federalists of the day who raised the specter of such an event. Madison was incredulous at this paranoid assertion and responded to such a “hypothetical” situation by writing, “But ambitious encroachments of the federal government on the authority of the state governments would not excite the opposition of a single state, or of a few States only. They would be signals of general alarm. Every government would espouse the common cause. . . Plans of resistance would be concerted.” Madison obviously thought the idea of a runaway federal government was ludicrous! Besides, he reasoned, the state militias are armed and ready to fight such an obvious act of tyranny. Not just one or two States, but ALL of them would certainly rise up with force of arms and resist! He rebuffed his detractors by saying, “[t]hat the governments and the people of the States should silently and patiently behold the gathering storm and continue to supply the materials until it should be prepared to burst on their own heads must appear to everyone more like the incoherent dreams of a delirious jealousy. . .than the sober apprehensions of genuine patriotism.”

The very idea that the entire federal government might act in concert to circumvent the Constitution was scarcely imaginable to James Madison. America had been born by the blood of the Patriots and the wounds of that great war could not be soon forgotten. The great cost of freedom from tyranny would be preserved by the careful dividing of the powers of government into such parts as may find themselves in tension with one another that only the most important national legislation could be passed. “The accumulation of all powers, legislative, executive, and judiciary, in the same hands, whether of one, a few, or many, and whether hereditary, self-appointed, or elective, may justly be pronounced the very definition of tyranny”

Modern political commentators often argue that in today’s fast-paced political climate, where decisions of great magnitude must be made quickly, a more efficient mechanism is necessary. They argue the political process inherited from the founders is too cumbersome; the President needs more authority to deal with emergency situations. But order and efficiency must be balanced against liberty for the two concepts are frequently at cross-purposes. Madison, quoting Montesque, wrote, “There can be no liberty where the legislative and executive powers are united in the same person, or body of magistrates.” The mood in Colonial America was one of independence- not just political independence from King George and Parliament, but one of more fundamental individual liberty. While modern Americans profess that they also desire liberty, they are unwilling (or unable) to accept the economic, social, and political consequences of that liberty. Rather, special interest groups have exerted influence far beyond their numbers and have succeeded in circumventing Constitutional processes by judicial activism or Executive Orders.