Habeas Corpus
A New Understanding

Gary Hunt
Outpost of Freedom
June 19, 2012

The Constitution provided for a separation of powers both within the federal government, and, between the federal government and the state governments (Republican Form, Art I, Sec IV, clause 4, Const.). There were limitations of, and grants of, authority given to the federal government. And, by the Tenth Amendment, those powers not granted were retained by the states or the people.

There is also a rather obscure provision that provided the means to protect the states and the people from encroachment by federal authority. When I say “obscure”, I do so because I am at a loss for the proper word. After all, nearly everybody in the country knows that “The Privilege of the Writ Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it” (Art. I, Sec. 9. Clause 2, Const.). Most people also understand that Habeas Corpus is also known as the “Sacred Writ”, however, I would suggest that only a small handful really understand exactly what Habeas Corpus ad subjiciendum, really is. After all, the last time the United States Supreme Court heard a case on Habeas Corpus ad subjiciendum was in 1876 (EX PARTE PARKS, 93 U.S. 18), yes, 136 years ago — long before any practicing attorney or judge ventured into law school to learn the “law of the land”. Given the number of generations between that last occurrence, is it any wonder that the concept, and the understanding of the significance, of Habeas Corpus has been lost?

Just a few historical quotations regarding the Sacred Writ:

“The sovereignty to be created was to be limited in its powers of legislation, and if it passed a law not authorized by its enumerated powers, it was not to be regarded as the supreme law of the land, nor were the State judges bound to carry it into execution.”. [Abelman v. Booth, 62 U.S. 506 (1858), at 519]

“This judicial power was justly regarded as indispensable, not merely to maintain the supremacy of the laws of the United States, but also to guard the States from any encroachment upon their reserved rights by the General Government.  And as the Constitution is the fundamental and supreme law, if it appears that an act of Congress is not pursuant to and within the limits of the power assigned to the Federal Government, it is the duty of the courts of the United States to declare it unconstitutional and void.  The grant of judicial power is not confined to the administration of laws passed in pursuance to the provisions of the Constitution, nor confined to the interpretation of such laws; but, by the very terms of the grant, the Constitution is under their view when any act of Congress is brought before them, and it is their duty to declare the law void, and refuse to execute it, if it is not pursuant to the legislative powers conferred upon Congress” [Abelman v. Booth, 62 U.S. 506 (1858), at 520,521]

“Rights and immunities created by or dependant upon the Constitution of the United States can be protected by Congress.  The form and the manner of the protection may be such as Congress, in the legitimate exercise of its legislative discretion, shall provide.  These may be varied to meet the necessities of the particular right to be protected”. [U S v. REESE, 92 U.S. 214 (1875), at 215, 216]

“A remedy the more necessary, because the oppression does not always arise from the ill-nature, but sometimes from the mere inattention of government“. [William Blackstone, Commentaries (1768)]

“Reasons will be given hereafter for considering many of the restrictions, contained in the amendments to the Constitution, as extending to the states as well as to the United States, but the nature of the writ of habeas corpus seems peculiarly to call for this construction. It is the great remedy of the citizen or subject against arbitrary or illegal imprisonment; it is the mode by which the judicial power speedily and effectually protects the personal liberty of every individual, and repels the injustice of unconstitutional laws or despotic governors“.  ["A View of the Constitution of the United States", William Rawles (1829)]

“The national code in which the writ of habeas corpus was originally found, is not expressly or directly incorporated into the Constitution.

If this provision had been omitted, the existing powers under the state governments, none of whom are without it, might be questioned, and a person imprisoned on a mandate of the president or other officer, under colour of lawful authority derived from the United States, might be denied relief. But the judicial authority, whether vested in a state judge, or a judge of the United States, is an integral and identified capacity; and if congress never made any provision for issuing writs of habeas corpus, either the state judges must issue them, or the individual be without redress.” ["A View of the Constitution of the United States", William Rawles (1829)]

“It is at any rate certain, that congress, which has authorized the courts and judges of the United States to issue writs of habeas corpus in cases within their jurisdiction, can alone suspend their power, and that no state can prevent those courts and judges from exercising their regular functions, which are, however, confined to cases of imprisonment professed to be under the authority of the United States. But the state courts and judges possess the right of determining on the legality of imprisonment under either authority. ["A View of the Constitution of the United States", William Rawles (1829)]

“§ 1333. In order to understand the meaning of the terms here used, it will be necessary to have recourse to the common law; for in no other way can we arrive at the true definition of the writ of habeas corpus. At the common law there are various writs, called writs of habeas corpus. But the particular one here spoken of is that great and celebrated writ, used in all cases of illegal confinement, known by the name of the writ of habeas corpus ad subjiciendum,” ["Commentaries on the Constitution", Joseph Story (1833)]

Though we have seen that the state legislatures have failed at nullification of unlawful enactments of Congress, perhaps, however,  we can see that there is a remedy within the Constitution that, if properly applied, will achieve such end. Unless, of course, the “Sacred Writ has been suspended — without the requisite act of Congress and the Constitutional conditions met.

To understand more about Habeas Corpus, and, the apparent suspension (not enacted suspension, as required), go to Habeas Corpus 2012

Also:

Habeas Corpus 2012

Has Habeas Corpus Been Eliminated

Freedom of Speech

Gary Hunt
Outpost of Freedom
February 23, 2012

A while back, I wrote an article, The Three Boxes, about the loss of both ballot and jury boxes, tools intended by the Framers, which allowed the people a degree of protection and redress against usurpation of un-granted (unconstitutional) powers by the government.  A comment I received regarding that article was the proclamation, “We still have Freedom of Speech”.  Well, that struck me as not quite so, which has led to this article.

To properly evaluate whether we still do have, intact, Freedom of Speech, we must go to the beginning or we find ourselves simply jumping to a conclusion based upon what we have been told.  So, if we are to start at the beginning, it behooves us to think about Speech, and exactly what it is.

Now, the first reaction to this question often elicits the response, “the words that I say, I can say anything I want”.  Well, there is no doubt that Speech is the utterance of words.  However, we must consider that words uttered, absent conscious thought, are more aptly described as gibberish.

It appears, then, that we can likely agree that Speech, that protection afforded in the First Amendment, must surely be intended to also protect the Freedom of Thought.  Otherwise, it would be best described as “Freedom of Gibberish”.

So, now that we have expanded the concept of Freedom of Speech to the point that thought has to be the conscious source for the words to be uttered, we can proceed.

Well, we know that we can go stand on the street corner and speak, all that we want.  At first glance, that would seem to imply that we do have Freedom of Speech.  However, what if we said something that was, well, not really an advocacy of a crime, a threat, or some other expression that would, under the Constitution, be unlawful?  Of course, yelling “fire” in a theatre, which might result in injury as people flee a perceived peril, is prevented by virtue of reason and common sense.  Also, slander and libel, directed at a specific individual, are, likewise, subject to judicial scrutiny as civil matters.  However, at what point must we “restrict” what we say?  And, what if we do find that we have, by law, or other means, been prohibited from expressing our thoughts, whatever they may be?  I think that we can, rightfully, construe Freedom of Speech, as suggested earlier, to be, in actuality, the Freedom of Expression of Thought — so long as that expression does not result in an unlawful act.

To fully investigate the theory as to what Freedom of Speech really entails, perhaps it would serve us to pick a topic and evaluate whether, as a consequence of other factors, we are, in fact, denied Freedom of Speech.  Since most states, at some point in time, had moral laws regarding the subject, it is probably safe to look at homosexuality to begin to delve into the consequences of the social engineering, and if, in fact, it has had the effect of suppressing Freedom of Speech.

Let’s go back about fifty years.  The commonly used term for a homosexual, accepted even in academic circles, was “queer” or “homo”, or, the more offensive “faggot” or “fag”.

Queer (all definitions from Webster’s 1828 dictionary): “At variance with what is usual or normal; differing in some odd way from what is ordinary; odd; singular; strange; whimsical; as, a queer story or act”.  Well, there can be little doubt that homosexuality is “at variance with what is usual or normal”.

Fagot: “A bundle of sticks, twigs or small branches of trees…”  The term was applied to the wood bundles used to kindle the fires with which witches and queers were burned, during the Inquisition, and “fag”, the abbreviated form.

Back then, there was nothing wrong with calling a homosexual a queer.  Even if you called him a fag, there were no social consequences, unless, of course, you were in a queer bar.  That was the accepted — the norm — at the time.  After all, Freedom of Speech (and the inherent ability to express thoughts that led to the Speech) was still intact, as they had been since the ratification of the Constitution and long before.

Social engineering, however, provides us a different twist.  Social Engineering is the art of manipulating people with the purpose of having greater effect on the social structure of society.  The very act of manipulating is contrary to the Constitution; however, the much more subtle social engineering is nothing less than offensive to a free people.  However, we must understand that once exposed, the ability to manipulate is negated by virtue of knowing that an effort is being made to cause one to think differently than he would, without such manipulation.

So, to continue our understanding of Freedom of Speech, we need to understand that Freedom of Thought is based upon our free will, or, as the Framers would have described it, natural law and natural rights.

When a concerted effort is made, regardless of who is making the effort, to intrude upon those fundamental rights, we have social engineering with the intention to sway common opinion into acceptance of what might, otherwise, be unacceptable.

So, suppose we take a word that has a very positive definition and substitute that word for the word that was, before, commonly acceptable.  Of course, we would pick a word that could otherwise also be associated with the word being replaced, so, let’s choose “gay” as the word to be used for the purpose of social engineering.

Gay: “Merry; airy; jovial; sportive; frolicksome.  It denotes more life and animation than cheerful”

The connotation of gay, even four decades ago, was quite different from what many would expect.  If you were going to a party, it could be a poker party, a bridge party, birthday party, or, perhaps, a gay party.  The last being a party where, most often, drinks were served and jokes and humorous stories told — everybody had a gay time.  Surely, a positive word, even in a morally sensitive world.

That morality, however, whether Biblical, or simply a moral judgment that sex was for procreation, left homosexuality on the fringes — “at variance with what is usual or normal”.

So, a concerted effort was made by the homosexual community to replace the traditionally, morally judgmental, phrases then used with the now stolen word, “gay”.  Wait just a minute, did I say stolen?  Well, if I have something, or the use of something, and someone takes it away from me so that I can no longer use it for the intended purpose, is it not “stolen”?  At the same time, they have taken a word that had an acceptable connotation and applied it to a practice that was not deemed acceptable.  The effect is to add an air of legitimacy to what was once outlawed.

So, what affect does this have on us, especially with regard to Freedom of Speech?  Well, let’s just think (Freedom of Thought) about it.  We know that it is politically correct to use the current attribute to the sexual activity, so our minds tells us, “You can’t say queer, anymore.  You have to refer to them as “gay” (or the even more recent “same sex”).  Subtle, but, heck, through these past few decades, we have slowly begun to accept this subtle inference — and, in the process, have rejected that which was common in favor of the socially engineered word.  We have, essentially, conditioned our mind to reject that which was and replace it with that that is — even to the point of correcting someone who uses the now archaic term, queer and wondering why they would use such a vulgar term to describe an acceptable activity or condition.  Now, instead of rejecting what was once immoral activity, we tend to reject those who have not succumbed to the engineering, as if they were worse than the gay people, who have every right not to have any aspersions cast upon them.  The good have become the bad, and, the bad have become the good — the world, truly, turned upside down.

So, in a mere fifty years, we have seen that Freedom of Speech has not only been suppressed, rather, it has also developed into suppression of thought — by such subtle and manipulative means.

We must question our willingness to be socially engineered, however subtle and long term that effort might be, or we will find that we have, by Orwellian means, allowed ourselves to remove our once assured rights.

Factions — The Chains of Oppression – Part III

The Greatest Obstacle to Restoration of Constitutional Government

Gary Hunt
Outpost of Freedom
August 25, 2011
This is Part IIII of IV Parts

Factions in conflict with the Principle Faction

Illegal immigrants:  It is often said that the first impression is the most important impression that you will make upon others.  Suppose that the first impression that you make is an unwillingness to abide by the rules/laws of the host, when you are a guest; suppose someone came, invited, or not, into your home and started telling you that the wall colors were wrong, that they didn’t like the pictures you had hung, that they didn’t like carpeted floors, or that you should prepares them a meal and a bed.  It would not be surprising if you caused them to exit your home, and assured them that they would never, again, have entry into your home.  That impression that they gave was not what is expected of the guest, and any reaction you had to that belligerence is justified, even if force is necessary to remove them.

We are the collective owners of the country (our collective home), and, as such, have established rules/laws for entry into that home. They were enacted in accordance with the Constitution and are, as such, the law of the land.  Those who enter with their first step being a violation of those rules/laws have, as the unwanted guest in your house, established an impression that is lasting, and totally unacceptable.

Those who wipe their muddy feet on your clean carpet are not a part of any acceptable class of people, visitors, or those here by right.  They have, by their actions, spit in the face of what this country stands for.  It is not a melting pot for the entire world, nor was it intended to be destroyed from within, by a cancer that grows at astronomical rates, and, quite often, at the expense of our own depleted treasury.  Each person that enters illegally, or overstays their permitted visit, is a greater threat to the future of our country than any military threat, from any other country, without comparison.  The military threat, we have proven, cannot prevail against us.  This insidious intrusion, however, eats away at our country’s soul with every day that they remain.

Illegal immigration advocates:  Those who would advocate forbearance in dealing with these intruders are not adherents to the Principle Faction, nor are they adherents to the laws, concepts, traditions, manners, customs, nor anything else, that we hold dear — and must continue to hold dear, if we are to survive as the United States, our birthright.

These people, though they may otherwise not be in conflict with the Principle Faction, and may even be of the class of “We the People”, or “citizen of the United States”, are, by their support of violation of the law of the land, in conflict with the Principle Faction.  They have denied the concept of assimilation, and have thereby provided a means of destruction of the entire purpose of the Founders and Framers, for the creation of this great nation.

Anti- religious groups, Atheists, Agnostics:  When we understand our heritage, we recognize that the Founders and Framers were religious, though perhaps not pious, men.  Both Washington and Jefferson had problems with organized religion, as many of us do today.  Regardless, they had beliefs founded on both Old and New Testaments, and adhered to the Christian moral values, without question.  Never did they challenge the concept that was, eventually, embodied in the First Amendment.

The Supreme Court Building (built 1932-35) in Washington, D.C., contains over a dozen depictions of Moses and/or the Ten Commandment, sculpted in stone, and permanent not only in that building, but in the hearts and heritage of this country.  Congress begins each daily session with prayer, and has done so from their first gathering.  President’s have called for days of prayer and thanksgiving, in official proclamations, throughout our history.

However, there are those advocates who have challenged the right of a state, a county, school, or even a small town, to begin with prayer; display the same representation found in the Supreme Court building, or erection of seasonal displays of Christian holidays on public land.

And, in a somewhat surprising response, they have found proponents of their advocacy in those very halls of government mentioned above.  All under the guise that such actions and displays are “unconstitutional”.

How can that be unconstitutional which was practiced by the very authors of that document, and those who ratified it?  Their practices and beliefs were not in question then, and there is the more serious question as to whether even an amendment to the Constitution would be Constitutional if it abrogated the First Amendment.

Surely, we cannot even begin to consider that we may remain as even a vestige of the United States if we allow the denigration of those practices considered by most to be fundamental to the establishment of the country — by those very people who caused to be carved in stone the underpinnings of the moral compass by which we found our course.

So long as they adhere to the Principle Faction, and otherwise meet the requirements of class, and distance themselves from those who advocate to the contrary, they may be considered to be of the Principle Faction.

Those who continue to advocate legal sanctions, removal of displays, or any other means of undermining that which has stood so long, are in conflict with the Principle Faction, and have no place in this country, since they choose not to assimilate, rather to change that which is our heritage.

Homosexual rights groups:  Some will argue that homosexuality is a disease, others that it is a lifestyle choice.  Each is a diversion from the crux of the matter.  It is considered by the Christian moral values adopted by this country, 220 years ago, to be immoral.  Though with the exception of some local jurisdictions, and some states, it has not been considered criminal — just immoral.

Even when criminal, it was seldom prosecuted, since it was conducted between consenting parties, in private circumstances.  To intrude on that privacy was as much a crime as the behavior itself, at least under the principles of the Constitution.  However, if we look at a few of the steps taken to endeavor to assign legitimacy and morality to the practice, we will find an excellent example of the destructiveness of factions.  The common terminology used to describe homosexuals was often “queer” (which is rather what their behavior was considered to be), or the more objectionable “fag” or “faggot” (a derogatory term).

As late as the fifties and sixties, homosexual, or, queer, bars and clubs were not uncommon.  Their public behavior was normal, and their private behavior, in such facilities, was, to use the expression of the time, “done in the closet”.  And, very few had objection to such behavior, so long as it did not “spill onto the streets”.

There was an effort in California, back in that period, to establish a homosexual community in the village of Alpine, in the High Sierra.  Even then, there was no general outrage, since the village would be their own ‘closet’.

Next came a change in terminology.  A word that was frequently used to indicate jovial, happy, light, was adopted by the homosexuals.  Back then, people would go to a “gay party” meaning that it was going to be sitting around in a light and humorous atmosphere, perhaps telling jokes and stories.  However the theft, yes, I mean theft, of that word, which had only positive connotations, was a move to give an air of legitimacy and acceptance to a behavior that was, heretofore, considered immoral.  A major coup by this faction managed to change the image of the homosexual, and to remove from usage a word that was commonly used, even then.

Since that time, this once frowned upon group has managed to use the courts and legislative process to provide special protection and special privileges from what was, through most of our history, a subject unworthy of discussion.  They have taken a word, “marriage”, with millennia of understanding of the definition, and still recognized in US Code as between a man and woman, and have managed to steal that word for their own uses and economic gain.

They have successfully lobbied for legislation that forces the government schools to encourage such behavior, contrary to the wishes of the parents who are clearly among the Principle Faction, and are advocating a moral degeneration of our society.

Those advocates of homosexuality are in conflict with the Principle Faction, and have no place, with the exception of the closet, in our country.

Black  rights advocates:  As explained in the “We the People” series (linked above), a second class of citizen was established by the Fourteenth Amendment, and confirmed by a subsequent amendment and decisions of the United States Supreme Court. However, through a subtle process of indoctrination, beginning in the late fifties and early sixties, the intent of that Amendment has been converted to an application that has generated havoc, loss of property, and even loss of life.

The “civil rights” movement of that period moved us from a society that recognized the Principle Faction (basically, a fundamentally white culture) to one that has legislated, encouraged, and enforced against, that society, undermining it,  in favor of granting privileges to those citizens of the United States, as well as other without such standing, under the guise of equality, greater even than that afforded to “We the People”.

Society, itself, had moved in that direction, at the rate that was warranted by the people, not the government. Whether Jackie Robinson, Nat King Cole, or Fats Domino; acceptance of negros as a part of our culture, was in the works.  Society, itself, was approaching a degree of equality, voluntarily.

Instead, it turned to demonstrations (not the preferred form of legislative influence), by both sides.  And, since those early days of civil rights demonstrations, they often turned to violence, instigated by both sides. America has been in a near constant state of turmoil, since the time that the government stepped in and tried to privilege the second class even above the first class.  And some of that violence, today, perpetrated by those who believe that “change has not come fast enough”, is nothing more than rioting and thievery, perpetrated under the guise of equality, couched in phrases about social and economic ‘justice’.

These, groups, relying upon judicial intimidation and violence, have proven that their methods and goals are in conflict with the Principle Faction, the Constitution and its principles, and our way of life.

Woman’s right advocates:  Abigail Adams, wife of John Adams, is probably the best known advocate of women’s rights.  However, as much as she discussed the subject in correspondence with her husband, he never did advocate such a change in the legal relationship of women within that society.

Over the years, the nation evolved, not turning against the Founding principles, rather, in a social or societal form, with Wyoming being the first to enact women’s suffrage laws.  Rights of ownership of land and/or inheritance were becoming common, and barriers were falling, as well as advancing women in the society, without intervention by the federal government.

Finally, in 1920, with the ratification of the Nineteenth Amendment, the federal government intervened in an area that was reserved by the Constitution to the states.  As with the Fifteenth Amendment (race suffrage), the right of the states to determine who could vote in elections, both state and national, as protected by the Constitution, was now being assumed by the  federal government.

Not that it was a bad move, rather, that it was the abrogation of the right of the states to make such a decision, that was so appalling.  It was just seven years earlier that the right of the states to be represented, by senators chosen by their respective legislatures, in Congress, was removed by the Seventeenth Amendment.  This was, effectively, the end of states’ rights.

As contrary to the original construction of the Constitution as this was, it also opened a means of the presumption of federal authority in manipulating the society to the will of the powers in Washington, D.C., and those who influence such social change.

Over time, unconstitutional legislation has resulted the reduction of the male to a subordinate position in our society, where lawsuits and intimidation work in only one direction, to the detriment, and at the expense of, one half of the society.

Our society, which was based upon rewards for performance, was converted to one where rewards are mandated by quotas, with little regard to ability and performance.  This denies to society the making of the choices that were assured and protected by the Constitution.

The advocacy of federal intervention, as opposed to the normal evolution of these norms in our culture, is in conflict with the Constitution and its principles, and is inconsistent with the Principle Faction.

Christian militia:  Militia, the right to collective self-defense, is embodied in the Second Amendment, and has been a part of our heritage and culture since the Magna Carta.  Since 1215, that right has existed, and, since that time, the Militia have always been subordinate to civil authority and have been geographic in their composition.  From the Shires of England, to the counties, townships, villages and plantations of the seventeen hundreds, participation in the militia was a right and was a duty. The only exceptions were exclusions for certain people because of vocation, and those that were “inimical to the cause of American Liberty” (Tories).  To exclude people who do not claim to be of the Christian faith is contrary to the Constitution and the principles upon which it was founded.

Christian militia are inconsistent the Principle Faction

Islamic groups:  Islam is not just a religion.  Islam, in its current manifestation, is a social and political system, as well.  It is a social system that includes a number of practices that are considered abhorrent, by our culture. Its social/judicial system manifests extreme punishments for what our culture might perceive to be a minor transgression or no crime at all.

Though two hundred years ago, “Mohametmen” simply practiced as a religion, and were accepted as a religion by the Framers, their character has changed to be anything but just a religion.

We can look to Europe and see the consequences of the intrusion of Islam into a society.  Eventually, the demand for change or legal reform to comply with their social/political system takes many forms, including physical abuse against people that oppose them; and the obstruction of roadways so that they can hold collective prayer absent a facility for such service; exercising their form of justice, including capital punishment, contrary to the host country’s laws, and often exempt from prosecution for crimes that would otherwise result in incarceration, or worse.

Much like the illegal immigrants, members of the Islamic faith come here with a total disregard for our laws, our culture, and our society.  They come with the intention of forcing change, by intimidation, by their numbers, or any means that suits them.  Their presence in the country, under their present manifestation, is contrary to the Constitution and its principles, and contrary to the Principle Faction.

The Congress:  Congress, especially after their vote for the Debt Ceiling Increase, has demonstrated that they are a faction unto themselves, without regard for the Constitution or the will of the people.

The Congress acts in conflict with the Principle Faction of this country.

The Executive Branch:  The Executive Branch, tasked with enforcing the laws of the land, has continued to ignore existing laws regarding immigration, and when forced into enforcing such laws, does so with a leniency that is more encouraging to the violation of the immigration laws than deterring them.

The Executive Branch has declared that Tea Party members; Constitutionalists; Gun Rights (Second Amendment) advocates, combat veterans, and others, who fall well within the Principle Faction as “terrorist”.

The executive Branch of the government is in conflict with the Principle Faction of this country

The US government:  The government “erected a multitude of new offices, and sent hither swarms of officers to harass our people, and eat out their substance”,  to lie, steal and even murder, members of the Principle Faction, and has done so with immunity from prosecution.

The Administrative Branches of government are in conflict with the Constitution and its principles, and the Principle Faction.

State governments:  State governments, with rare exception, do not defy federal intrusions against the Principle Faction, and often participate in the enforcement of unconstitutional polices and laws, receiving compensation from the federal government for the submission to its assumed and unconstitutional authority.

The state governments are acting in conflict with the Constitution and its principles, and the Principle Faction.

Of course, within each of these factions are members who are adherents to the Principle Faction and the Constitution, though they may be facilitating that faction in opposition to the Principle Faction.  Rather than suffering guilt by association, they would be well advised to understand that adherence to the Principle Faction and assimilation is imperative.

“We the People”, but, Who are We? – Part V

Gary Hunt
Outpost of Freedom
August 3, 2011

In Part I, we established what the Supreme Court determined to be “We the People”, or, “citizens of the United States”, prior to the ratification of the Fourteenth Amendment.

In Part II, we saw that the Fourteenth Amendment conferred to those not of “We the People”, regardless of prior status, a new class of people who are granted “privileges and immunities”, though not the rights inherent with “We the People”.

In Part III, we see that within a few years of ratification of the 14th Amendment, the Supreme Court confirms that “rights” were not conveyed by that Amendment.

In Part IV, we found that the Supreme Court did recognize that there was a difference between a citizen of a state and a citizen of the United States, and that the latter was protected (jurisdiction existed) by the Fourteenth Amendment and to the former, it did not (no jurisdiction).

Now, we will move forward, 56 years, to 1964, to a case that reaffirms the classes of citizen, though begins to erode the protections previously provided to citizens of the United States.

The case is Malloy v. Hogan, 378 U.S. 1, and involves a discussion by the Court of just which Amendments (Bill of Rights) are extended to those who seek protection under the Fourteenth Amendment, when it says:

“It was on the authority of that decision that the Court said in 1908 in Twining v.  New Jersey, supra, that “it is possible that some of the personal rights safeguarded by the first eight Amendments against National action may also be safeguarded against state action, because a denial of them would be a denial of due process of law.”

So, the question that arose in this case is, to what extent does the Fourteenth Amendment apply to the protection of rights, and, which rights are protected.  It redefines what was said in Twining, and requires that any right being protected “be a denial of the due process of law“.  This is a simple paraphrase of “the equal protection of the laws”, from the Fourteenth Amendment.  So, it simply expands that singular authority to include speech, press, and other rights within the first eight amendments, so long as “due process” can be brought into the equation.

It did not, however, even begin to address anything that would remove, or affect, the nature of the two classes of citizen.  They remain unimpaired and intact.

Since the Courts will use a stepping stone process in “revising” laws to a more modern “interpretation”, Malloy afforded the Court the opportunity to undermine the distinction between the two classes.  However, they chose not to walk upon that sacred ground.  Their absence of comment on the two classes leaves that distinction intact.

So, we can see that from Dred Scott (Part I), in 1854, the Court established a foundation of this country as being built upon, by, and for, a certain class of people.  This is probably best defined by the wording of Justice Taney, in that decision, to wit:

“It is true, every person, and every class and description of persons, who were at the time of the adoption of the Constitution recognised as citizens in the several States, became also citizens of this new political body; but none other; it was formed by them, and for them and their posterity, but for no one else and privileges guaranteed to citizens of this new sovereignty were intended to embrace those only who were then members of the several State communities, or who should afterwards by birthright or otherwise become members, according to the provisions of the Constitution and the principles on which it was founded.  It was the union of those who were at that time members of distinct and separate political communities into one political family, whose power, for certain specified purposes, was to extend over the whole territory of the United States.  And it gave to each citizen rights and privileges outside of his State which he did not before possess, and placed him in every other State upon a perfect equality with its own citizens as to rights of person and rights of property; it made him a citizen of the United States.

For the sake of discussion, this sacred class (within the United States) shall be referred to as “We the People”.  But, perhaps, we should endeavor, with a bit more precision, to define just what/who those “We the People” were/are, in light of what Justice Taney said.

After much thought, I can only come up with three possibilities that might shed light on Taney’s description of that class known as “We the People”.

1. That it would include only those who are defined by the rather common acronym, “WASP”, meaning “White Anglo-Saxon Protestant”.  When we consider that in the Seventeenth and Eighteenth Centuries, Jews were not allowed to reside in some of the colonies; that loathing of Catholics (Popists) was common through most of the colonies, during that period, more effectually demonstrated by the objection to the Quebec Act of 1774, allowing Catholics to vote and hold office in Canada, are indicative of the sympathies of the times;
2. Caucasians of European descent, which would include perhaps 99% of those who had immigrated to the colonies to begin life, anew; or,
3. Those of Indo-European language groups (first defined in 1647 and including English, Dutch, Greek, Latin, Persian, German, Slavic, Celtic and Baltic languages), thus having a common heritage and culture, at least in the distant past.

There is no way that we can interpret, from what Justice Taney said, just who “We the People” were, though it is clear by the context of his description that it would include those above described peoples, or combinations thereof, “but for no one else.

Then, the Fourteenth Amendment was ratified and granted citizenship to people who were not of this class, “We the People”.  Further, it granted then only privileges and immunities.  It did not grant them rights.

This position (distinction between classes) is further supported by the ratification of the 15th Amendment (granting the right of suffrage (voting), regardless of “race, color, or previous condition of servitude”.

Then, in 1874, the Court, in Happersett (Part III), made clear that the Fourteenth Amendment did not convey rights.  However, the Constitution makes clear that there are rights retained by the people (We the People), so since there cannot be conflict between the Constitution and an AMENDMENT (unless expressly resolved in the amendment), the distinction is further enhanced.

So, for all intents and purposes, there are four classes of people in this country, today:

• “We the People”, those descended from the Framers, or otherwise within the principles of the original Constitution, who have retained their rights;
• Those made citizens by the Fourteenth Amendment, with the privileges and immunities granted therein, and any rights specifically bestowed, by subsequent amendments;
• Those who are here, lawfully and in accordance with all laws, as visitors, and who have not violated any conditions of the permission granted to visit; and,
• Those who are here unlawfully, that have entered in violation of our laws or have violated the conditions of their permissive visitation.

The foundation of this country, then, rests upon an understanding that the purpose of the Constitution, and the country, is to provide a home for those of the class, “We the People”.  That others who choose to assimilate into the American Culture do so with that understanding, and the understanding that they are the beneficiaries of all privileges and immunities, though only those rights specifically granted.

It can also be concluded that any who have designs contrary to the support and continuation of the United States, as intended by the Framers, and described herein, are inconsistent with the purpose of the country, and, as such, are against the Constitution and should be deemed unacceptable and unwanted visitors.

If the United States is to return to its former stature as the beacon to the world of freed enterprise by a free people, we must return, also, to the concept that allowed such concepts of freedom to prosper, and grow, in a rather short history, to what it had become by the end of the Nineteenth Century.

It can return to that stature only if we do return to those principles that made this nation great.  Absent a dedication to that purpose, we are destined to be nothing more than a footnote in history.  And, that will be our rightful place, if we fail to act to secure that which we hold so dear.

Thus concludes this series.

* * * * *

Part I can be found at “We the People”, but, Who are We? – Part I

Part II can be found at “We the People”, but, Who are We? – Part II

Part III can be found at “We the People”, but, Who are We? — Part III

Part IV can be found at “We the People”, but, Who are We? — Part IV

“We the People”, but, Who are We? – Part II

Gary Hunt
Outpost of Freedom
July 19, 2011

In the first part, Justice Taney [Chief Justice of the Supreme Court who delivered the Decision in Dred Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. 393 (1856)], speaking from the past, explained who was, and, who was not of that class of people known as “We the People.  Recapping that post:

We think they [descendents of slaves, whether free, or not] are not, and that they are not included, and were not intended to be included, under the word ‘citizens’ in the Constitution, and can therefore claim none of the rights and privileges which that instrument provides for and secures to citizens of the United States.  On the contrary, they were at that time considered as a subordinate and inferior class of beings, who had been subjugated by the dominant race, and, whether emancipated or not, yet remained subject to their authority, and had no rights or privileges but such as those who held the power and the Government might choose to grant them.

* * *

It is true, every person, and every class and description of persons, who were at the time of the adoption of the Constitution recognised as citizens in the several States, became also citizens of this new political body; but none other; it was formed by them, and for them and their posterity, but for no one else.  And the personal rights and privileges guaranteed to citizens of this new sovereignty were intended to embrace those only who were then members of the several State communities, or who should afterwards by birthright or otherwise become members, according to the provisions of the Constitution and the principles on which it was founded.  It was the union of those who were at that time members of distinct and separate political communities into one political family, whose power, for certain specified purposes, was to extend over the whole territory of the United States.  And it gave to each citizen rights and privileges outside of his State which he did not before possess, and placed him in every other State upon a perfect equality with its own citizens as to rights of person and rights of property; it made him a citizen of the United States.

So, the rights and privileges were not conferred upon those who were not citizens at the time of adoption of the Constitution, and their descendents and others.  Those rights, too, are defined as inclusive, regardless of whether he is in his state or another state.

So, in 1867, the 14th Amendment to the Constitution was ratified.  However, it did not convey rights, only privileges and immunities, to wit [Fourteenth Amendment]:

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.  No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; 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.

However, this Amendment did not change or undo that which Taney had described as the “citizens of the United States”, though a new class was created by the 14th Amendment.

Now, I know a lot of people don’t see it that way.  They believe that the 14th Amendment merged the ex-slaves and their descendents into the same class of people that had previously held the title of “citizens of the United States”, or, “We the People”.  However, if you will note the wording of the 14th Amendment, you will see that “rights” were not conveyed, only “privileges and immunities”.  Now, this may seem small, or insignificant, though that is because we have been subjected to “political correctness” and mountains of legislation establishing “civil rights”.  However, the Framers never referred to the rights protected by the Constitution as civil, since civil implies granted by government — which is exactly what the legislature has done — enact laws granting civil rights.  These fundamental rights granted by God are not granted by government, and, they are not civil rights.  They were the object and goal of the colonists from April 19, 1775 to the ratification of the Constitution, 14 years later.

What is very important to understand is that when a law is enacted, or a constitution or amendment ratified, the intent at the time of enactment or ratification is, and must be, what was intended — at that time.  To think otherwise is to allow the legislation, or even the Constitution, to mean what was not intended by the sleight of redefining words, concepts, or even enforcement.  If that is how we are to operate, we are not a nation of laws rather, of man, and that man who sits in Washington; Member of Congress, President,. Justice or Administrative Agency head is free to promulgate what he wants the law to be and applies not what was intended to be, rather, what he desires it to be.

As James Madison said, in Federalist Papers #62:

It poisons the blessing of liberty itself. It will be of little avail to the people, that the laws are made by men of their own choice, if the laws be so voluminous that they cannot be read, or so incoherent that they cannot be understood; if they be repealed or revised before they are promulgated, or undergo such incessant changes that no man, who knows what the law is today, can guess what it will be tomorrow. Law is defined to be a rule of action; but how can that be a rule, which is little known, and less fixed?

So, as you contemplate what is said in this Part, understand that only the words of those who were alive at the time of these activities can tell is what they meant.  It is only their words, not what some ACLU lawyer might try to make them out to be, that we must be obedient to.  To be obedient to any other interpretation is, at best, disobedience to the Constitution.

We have seen the affect of the 14th Amendment on the right, privileges and immunities of those who were and were not of the class known as “We the People”.  Now the question arises as to whether the 14th Amendment changed who “We the People” are, and, if so, what proof do we have that only “privileges and immunities, not rights, were conveyed by that Amendment.  That will be the subject of the Part III.

Part I can be found at “We the People”, but, Who are We? – Part I

—

Part III can be found at “We the People”, but, Who are We? — Part III

Part IV can be found at “We the People”, but, Who are We? — Part IV

Part V can be found at “We the People”, but, Who are We? — Part V 

“We the People”, but, Who are We? – Part I

Gary Hunt
Outpost of Freedom
July 18, 2011

In some research for another article (The Fourteenth Article in Amendment to the Constitution), I ran across a rather enlightening revelation.  It was, just 60 years after the Constitution, a clear and concise definition of just (and only) who the “We the People”, in the Preamble to the Constitution, really are.

Now, most of us will assume that any citizen of the United States is one of, “We the People”.  I must admit that until recently, I, too, believed this to be the case.

Regardless of the (political) correctness of this assumption, we must understand that the law is what it was intended to be, not what we might want it to be.  There is only one means by which that can be changed, and that is the amendment process defined in Article V, of the Constitution.

So, here is what was revealed to us, by the Supreme Court of the United States, with regard to a definitive answer to the question.  The case is Dred Scott v. Sandford  -  60 U.S. 393 (1856)

As recently as ten years before the Fourteenth Amendment was submitted to the States by the Congress, an historical, and often referred to, case was heard by the Supreme Court.

Scott was born a slave, in Missouri.  As such, he was not a citizen.  His “owner” laid hands on Scott, his wife and 2 children.  Scott sued Sandford for assault.  Scott was awarded his freedom by a Saint Louis County, Missouri, Circuit Court.  The case was appealed to the State Supreme Court and reversed.  The Circuit Court then reheard the case.  Scott made exception to the instructions to the jury.  The jury then ruled against Scott.  Based upon the “Exception”.

The case eventually ended up in the Supreme Court.  In its decision (below), the Court pointed out that Scott had claimed to be a citizen of Missouri, which would give him standing to sue Sandford.  It found that though Scott was not a citizen of Missouri, or, of the United States, that standing for the Court to hear the case was based upon the Courts acting on the fact that the question of citizenship was not in the plea that brought the matter before the Court.

You will see that even though Scott had no standing, the Court decided to hear the case, anyway.  If you do not challenge jurisdiction (Sandford’s obligation), the Court may assume jurisdiction, the laws of the land notwithstanding..

Chief Justice Taney delivered the opinion of the Court.  Excerpts are from that decision.

“That plea denies the right of the plaintiff to sue in a court of the United States, for the reasons therein stated.  If the question raised by it is legally before us, and the court should be of opinion that the facts stated in it disqualify the plaintiff from becoming a citizen, in the sense in which that word is used in the Constitution of the United States, then the judgment of the Circuit Court is erroneous, and must be reversed.  It is suggested, however, that this plea is not before us; and that as the judgment in the court below on this plea was in favor of the plaintiff, he does not seek to reverse it, or bring it before the court for revision by his writ of error; and also that the defendant waived this defence by pleading over, and thereby admitted the jurisdiction of the court.“

Since the matter of citizenship was not in the plea that brought the matter before the Court, the Court will not rule on Scott’s standing.

However, the Court now finds that it has a forum to define just what a citizen is — a point that had only been addressed in rather ambiguous terms in the Constitution, and not since addressed by the Congress, or the Court.

Taney goes on to ask this important question:

Can a negro, whose ancestors were imported into this country, and sold as slaves, become a member of the political community formed and brought into existence by the Constitution of the United States, and as such become entitled to all the rights, and privileges, and immunities, guaranteed by that instrument to the citizen? “

Further defining the question, he says:

The only matter in issue before the court, therefore, is, whether the descendants of such slaves, when they shall be emancipated, or who are born of parents who had become free before their birth, are citizens of a State, in the sense in which the word citizen is used in the Constitution of the United States.

While the decision covers many aspects, and many ways, of addressing the question, I will provide only those that are concise and indicative of the sense of the Court and the decision held to.  Remember, as you read, that this decision predates the 14th Amendment.

The words ‘people of the United States’ and ‘citizens’ are synonymous terms, and mean the same thing.  They both describe the political body who, according to our republican institutions, form the sovereignty, and who hold the power and conduct the Government through their representatives.  They are what we familiarly call the ‘sovereign people,’ and every citizen is one of this people, and a constituent member of this sovereignty.  The question before us is, whether the class of persons described in the plea in abatement compose a portion of this people, and are constituent members of this sovereignty?  We think they are not, and that they are not included, and were not intended to be included, under the word ‘citizens’ in the Constitution, and can therefore claim none of the rights and privileges which that instrument provides for and secures to citizens of the United States.  On the contrary, they were at that time considered as a subordinate and inferior class of beings, who had been subjugated by the dominant race, and, whether emancipated or not, yet remained subject to their authority, and had no rights or privileges but such as those who held the power and the Government might choose to grant them.

Well, there is an interesting phrase, used in the discussion of the Fourteenth Amendment by the Senate, “remained subject to their authority”.

In discussing this question, we must not confound the rights of citizenship which a State may confer within its own limits, and the rights of citizenship as a member of the Union.  It does not by any means follow, because he has all the rights and privileges of a citizen of a State, that he must be a citizen of the United States.  He may have all of the rights and privileges of the citizen of a State, and yet not be entitled to the rights and privileges of a citizen in any other State.  For, previous to the adoption of the Constitution of the United States, every State had the undoubted right to confer on whomsoever it pleased the character of citizen, and to endow him with all its rights.  But this character of course was confined to the boundaries of the State, and gave him no rights or privileges in other States beyond those secured to him by the laws of nations and the comity of States.  Nor have the several States surrendered the power of conferring these rights and privileges by adopting the Constitution of the United States.  Each State may still confer them upon an alien, or any one it thinks proper, or upon any class or description of persons; yet he would not be a citizen in the sense in which that word is used in the Constitution of the United States, nor entitled to sue as such in one of its courts, nor to the privileges and immunities of a citizen in the other States.  The rights which he would acquire would be restricted to the State which gave them.  The Constitution has conferred on Congress the right to establish an uniform rule of naturalization, and this right is evidently exclusive, and has always been held by this court to be so.  Consequently, no State, since the adoption of the Constitution, can by naturalizing an alien invest him with the rights and privileges secured to a citizen of a State under the Federal Government, although, so far as the State alone was concerned, he would undoubtedly be entitled to the rights of a citizen, and clothed with all the rights and immunities which the Constitution and laws of the State attached to that character.

It is very clear, therefore, that no State can, by any act or law of its own, passed since the adoption of the Constitution, introduce a new member into the political community created by the Constitution of the United States.  It cannot make him a member of this community by making him a member of its own.  And for the same reason it cannot introduce any person, or description of persons, who were not intended to be embraced in this new political family, which the Constitution brought into existence, but were intended to be excluded from it.

The question then arises, whether the provisions of the Constitution, in relation to the personal rights and privileges to which the citizen of a State should be entitled, embraced the negro African race, at that time in this country, or who might afterwards be imported, who had then or should afterwards be made free in any State; and to put it in the power of a single State to make him a citizen of the United States, and endow him with the full rights of citizenship in every other State without their consent? Does the Constitution of the United States act upon him whenever he shall be made free under the laws of a State, and raised there to the rank of a citizen, and immediately clothe him with all the privileges of a citizen in every other State, and in its own courts?

The court think the affirmative of these propositions cannot be maintained.  And if it cannot, the plaintiff in error could not be a citizen of the State of Missouri, within the meaning of the Constitution of the United States, and, consequently, was not entitled to sue in its courts.”

It is true, every person, and every class and description of persons, who were at the time of the adoption of the Constitution recognised as citizens in the several States, became also citizens of this new political body; but none other; it was formed by them, and for them and their posterity, but for no one else.  And the personal rights and privileges guaranteed to citizens of this new sovereignty were intended to embrace those only who were then members of the several State communities, or who should afterwards by birthright or otherwise become members, according to the provisions of the Constitution and the principles on which it was founded.  It was the union of those who were at that time members of distinct and separate political communities into one political family, whose power, for certain specified purposes, was to extend over the whole territory of the United States.  And it gave to each citizen rights and privileges outside of his State which he did not before possess, and placed him in every other State upon a perfect equality with its own citizens as to rights of person and rights of property; it made him a citizen of the United States.

Well, that makes pretty clear who could not be a “citizen of the United States”.  So, let us look, from the other side, at who was a “citizen of the United States”.

“It becomes necessary, therefore, to determine who were citizens of the several States when the Constitution was adopted.  And in order to do this, we must recur to the Governments and institutions of the thirteen colonies, when they separated from Great Britain and formed new sovereignties, and took their places in the family of independent nations.  We must inquire who, at that time, were recognised as the people or citizens of a State, whose rights and liberties had been outraged by the English Government; and who declared their independence, and assumed the powers of Government to defend their rights by force of arms.

In the opinion of the court, the legislation and histories of the times, and the language used in the Declaration of Independence, show, that neither the class of persons who had been imported as slaves, nor their descendants, whether they had become free or not, were then acknowledged as a part of the people, nor intended to be included in the general words used in that memorable instrument.

Now, clearly, it is those who initiated the fight for independence that are of the class recognized by the Constitution as “citizens of the United States”.  Many have pointed out that one of the first to “die for the cause” was a negro named Crispus Attucks, who was shot to death in the “Boston Massacre”, in 1770.  This, however, in the eyes of the Court, does not qualify him as one of the people — for which the country was intended.

Though the decision of the Court continues to give examples of just how the Court perceived this relationship, I would prefer to not include too many more of the over one-hundred and ten thousand words in the Decision.  There are some words, however, that warrant our attention in fully understanding what was intended by the founding of this nation, and so I will provide these few additional paragraphs:

“The language of the Declaration of Independence is equally conclusive:

It begins by declaring that, ‘when in the course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth the separate and equal station to which the laws of nature and nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect for the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.’

It then proceeds to say: ‘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 them is life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness; that to secure these rights, Governments are instituted, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.‘

The general words above quoted would seem to embrace the whole human family, and if they were used in a similar instrument at this day would be so understood.  But it is too clear for dispute, that the enslaved African race were not intended to be included, and formed no part of the people who framed and adopted this declaration; for if the language, as understood in that day, would embrace them, the conduct of the distinguished men who framed the Declaration of Independence would have been utterly and flagrantly inconsistent with the principles they asserted; and instead of the sympathy of mankind, to which they so confidently appealed, they would have deserved and received universal rebuke and reprobation.

Yet the men who framed this declaration were great men-high in literary acquirements-high in their sense of honor, and incapable of asserting principles inconsistent with those on which they were acting.  They perfectly understood the meaning of the language they used, and how it would be understood by others; and they knew that it would not in any part of the civilized world be supposed to embrace the negro race, which, by common consent, had been excluded from civilized Governments and the family of nations, and doomed to slavery.  They spoke and acted according to the then established doctrines and principles, and in the ordinary language of the day, and no one misunderstood them.  The unhappy black race were separated from the white by indelible marks, and laws long before established, and were never thought of or spoken of except as property, and when the claims of the owner or the profit of the trader were supposed to need protection.

This state of public opinion had undergone no change when the Constitution was adopted, as is equally evident from its provisions and language.

The brief preamble sets forth by whom it was formed, for what purposes, and for whose benefit and protection.  It declares that it is formed by the people of the United States; that is to say, by those who were members of the different political communities in the several States; and its great object is declared to be to secure the blessings of liberty to themselves and their posterity.  It speaks in general terms of the people of the United States, and of citizens of the several States, when it is providing for the exercise of the powers granted or the privileges secured to the citizen.  It does not define what description of persons are intended to be included under these terms, or who shall be regarded as a citizen and one of the people.  It uses them as terms so well understood, that no further description or definition was necessary.

Therefore, an attempt to apply the standards upon which this nation was founded to the morality of today, or, even, of 1856, when this case was heard, would be to deny the intention of the founders.  This does not preclude the utilization of the Fifth Article (Amendment Process) of the Constitution to effect change, which was to be partially achieved eleven years later.  It simply explains what a “citizen of the United States” was, prior to the Fourteenth Amendment.

Now the question arises as to whether the 14th Amendment changed who “We the People” are, or not. That will be the subject of the Part II.

* * * * *

Part II can be found at “We the People”, but, Who are We? – Part II

Part III can be found at “We the People”, but, Who are We? — Part III

Part IV can be found at “We the People”, but, Who are We? — Part IV

Part V can be found at “We the People”, but, Who are We? — Part V

Committees of Safety and the General Association

The Committees of safety were best described as an Executive Committee, perhaps equivalent to a mayor, county board, or governor.  In Agnes Hunt’s book, “The Provincial Committees of Safety of the American Revolution“, she explains the colony level Committee of Safety as an Executive Board that often shared that responsibility with the governor, if the governor had taken the colonist’s side of the dispute with Great Britain.

Though no “instruction manual” has been found, various writings about the Committees, and records left by them, provide a pattern that can be reestablished, at least to the extent that the Committees operated, in some locations.  It is probably safe to assume, also, that other locations operated in a similar fashion.

What has come to light is that a community had a General Association, to which each family who chose to subscribe was subscribed by the signature of the head of the family.  In some instances, if the head of the family was a Tory, or had questionable allegiance, another male in the family would subscribe to the General Association.  It also appears that the term, Committee of Safety, applied to both the General Association and the executive board known as the Committee of Safety.  Tories were excluded from participation, however, once hostilities broke out, they, along with everyone else in the community, was assumed to be under the jurisdiction of the Committee of Safety (a de fact subscriber).  This would subject them to judicial control of the Committee, which, in the case of Tories.  Might result in “house-arrest, taking of long arms, or even imprisonment, unless and until an oath was taken to the cause of the colony.

From the General Association, members were elected to serve on the Committee, as representatives of the entire Association.  In Albany, New York, where a count can be made, approximately 10% of the General Association (by family, not total census) served on the Committee of Safety, at any given time.

There was frequent turnover within the Committee.  Chairmen appeared to serve for six months, and names change, in the composition of the Committee, fairly often, though some members served the entire period from 1775 to 1781.

Prior to the outbreak of hostilities.  Most General Associations, and their respective Committees of Safety, existed only to fill in where the British government failed to provide necessary services.  Often the Association and Committee were described as the “town meeting”, which was an authority granted under the Royal Charter, converted to strictly General Associations and Committees of Safety, as the disagreement between colonists and British Rule devolved into conflict (See The End of the Revolution and the Beginning of Independence).

By April 12, 1775, the Massachusetts Provincial Congress requested that all communities within Massachusetts form Committees of Safety (See document at committee.org).  After the outbreak of hostilities, just a week later, every colony put out similar requests for the creation of Committees.

Much of the record of evidence demonstrates another aspect of Committees.  Committees were formed in communities.  Within a County, those communities would form a County Committee of Safety, and, though, much independence of action by the local Committees was retained, they subordinated to the County Committee of Safety, as a senior body.  Similarly, the Provincial Committees (as par Agnes Hunt, above) subordinated to the State Committee of Safety, though they, too, retained independence in many areas.  The ascending levels of authority appear to be only to the extent necessary to achieve cooperation and coordination of efforts.

The extent of the “legislative authority” of the Committees, at all levels, seems to be limited with enacting laws to deal with Tories (those inimical to the cause of American Liberty”) and establishing requirements for service in their respective militia units.

For more information about Committees of Safety, go to http://www.committee.org

The
Fourteenth Article
in Amendment to the Constitution

From the Ratification of the Constitution through today

What affect has it had on the concept of government intended by the Framers of the Constitution; on our Liberties and our Lives; and, is it really what we believe it to be?

A study of the history of the Fourteenth Amendment
and its effects

By
Gary Hunt

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

For nearly thirty years, I have attempted to resolve a series of questions that are common to the patriot, or constitutionalist, community.  These questions relate to what has happened to the legal system that we were supposed to have adopted, at the time of the formation of this country, based upon both the Common Law of England, as it existed on July 4, 1776, and, a concept of justice that removed us from the arbitrary control of government.

Over the years, I have listened to what others had to say I have watched their actions to see the results.  I have read cases that seemed to bear on the subject, and, I have “experimented”, when the opportunity to do so arose.

Over time, as will be explained in the following, the pieces seem to fit a pattern.  Rather than trying to wrap the facts around a theory, I developed a theory that fit all of the facts that I could find.  However, in finding that some of the facts were, inexplicably, unwilling to fit any theory, I realized that there must be two theories, and it was a matter, then, of determining which theory fit which facts.

The two outstanding theories, neither of which will recognize the other, are:

• We are subject to all laws enacted by the government, unless the Supreme Court overrules them.
• We are subject to no laws enacted by the Congress; instead, we are only subject to the common law.

The two sides (theories) have advocates who faced off with the other side, each insisting that they are right and the other is wrong.  While, in fact, both sides are partially right, and, partially wrong.

* * *

It does, however, appear that many of the intermediate jurisdictions (other than courts), institutions, and even private corporations, believe that the nexus is there, and, that they are bound by such laws they are told to abide by.  They assume that you, too, are bound by such laws.  To argue the point with them is fruitless, and, at best, will only create dissension.  They, too, have been duped, along with most of the people in this country, into believing that which is not true.

It is for the purpose of exposing that deception that the following has been prepared, for your consideration.

* * *

This Essay will provide insight into the beliefs of the Framers of the Constitution; the effect that the Civil War and Lincoln’s assassination; Court decisions and Congressional enactments have had on our relationship with the government.

You may be sorry after you have read it, but you will understand how the subversion of the Constitution has been achieved.

The entire Essay can be found on line at: http://www.outpost-of-freedom.com/hh04.htm

The PDF file can be download from The Fourteenth Article in Amendment to the Constitution – Essay (PDF)