How to Shrink the Federal Government
How to Shrink the Federal Government
Reclaim your State Citizens
To Governors of the several States:
I present this paper as a challenge and an inspiration to you collectively, with respect for your authority of office. In this communication I list legal precedents for decentralization of federal power, limitation of its unbridled control and a return of revenue back to the States. There is a legal path to affect a revenue reversal from federal to state level primarily by the States reclaiming their citizens from the subordinated status (Colgate v Harvey, 296 U.S. 404) they are currently in as U.S. (federal) citizens. At the foundation of my decades long research and conclusions stated herein is the fundamental question:
If a natural person only claims State citizenship, can they challenge the applicability of the U.S. Codes that have not been enacted into positive law, including, Titles 2, 6, 7, 8, 12, 15, 16, 19, 20, 21, 22, 24, 25, 26, 27, 29, 30, 33, 34, 42, 43, 45, 47, 48, 50, 52. https://uscode.house.gov/
THE PROBLEM: The federal government has grown too big, is too wasteful of our tax dollars, and some departments are unlawfully acting against the citizens and in violation of the Constitution’s 10th Amendment. Its clear to anyone paying attention that there are very powerful global forces at work that do not respect the idea of individual sovereignty and individual rights.
THE CHALLENGE: How can We the People in concert with the States of the Union, SCOTUS rulings and existing laws, rein in the federal government?
THE SOLUTION: Use the law to reclaim your citizens from the federal citizenship’s “paramount and dominant” (Colgate v. Harvey, 296 U.S. 404) status over State citizenship. This will reduce federal power and control – he who has the citizens has the revenue/power. It will also open a flood gate of tax funds, previously held captive by Washington, for the benefit of you and your individual state budgets and special projects. It will also win over the African-American voters.
This letter has several sections:
Summary of Thesis
Presentation of facts and legal precedence regarding citizenship and our rights under each.
How citizenship has been hijacked by the federal government: the problem and its root cause.
The Solution.
The legal references are not meant to be comprehensive, but they are representative of the long-established legal precedence used to support my thesis and strategy.
Summary of Thesis
Fundamental to my thesis are decades of research into legal definitions, the most important of which involves the term ‘United States’. In Hooven and Allison Co. v. Evatt, 324 U.S. 652 (1945), SCOTUS stated that the term, ‘United States’, has one of three meanings:
One nation in a family of nations (would be used in treaties with other countries)
That area over which the District [of Columbia] has exclusive legislative jurisdiction as defined in U.S. Constitution, Art.1, Sec.8, Clause 17
The 50 States united by and under the U.S. Constitution
(If your attorney doesn’t know the legal definitions of ‘United States’, get additional help)
The following FACTS are the legal basis of the ‘Solution’ on the last page. A sample of supporting cases are on the next two pages.
There are two citizenships, State and federal, and rights under one are different than the other.
Detailed explanation is in this article: The subordination of unalienable rightsU.S. Congress is NOT limited by the U.S. Constitution when legislating for the District of Columbia, but IS limited when legislating for the 50 States of the Union. Thus, citizens of the District of Columbia, aka, U.S. citizens, are potentially subject to regulations/laws that would not apply to just State citizens.
Details in this article: Which 'United States', there are 3 of them!.Half of the 54 Titles that make up the U.S. Code have never been enacted into positive law, and are only prima facie evidence of the law, and are therefore ‘rebuttable presumptions’. Title-26 (Internal Revenue Code) is one of the Titles that has never been enacted into positive law.
Details in this article: Half the US Code are rebuttable presumptionsCourts have ruled that one can be a State citizen without being a U.S. citizen.
Details in this article: Can one be a State citizen without being a US citizen?A natural person who is only a State citizen can challenge the applicability of the U.S. Codes that have not been enacted into positive law.
The following sections cover:
Supporting case law, mostly SCOTUS-level
Why are we in this situation? The root cause of the federal government’s out of control growth
Solution: How to shrink the federal government and return to a more balanced sharing of power… peacefully!
Supporting Case Law
FACT: There are 2 citizenships in this country: state and federal.
U.S. v Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542 (1875), 23 L.Ed. 588
"We have in our political system a government of the United States (DofC) and a government of each of the several States. Each one of these governments is distinct from the others, and each has citizens of its own..."
Twining v New Jersey, 211 U.S. 78 (1908), Madden v Kentucky 309 U.S. 83 (1939)
"When a Federal Government was later formed, a Federal citizenship first came into being, not dependent upon the State constitutions, and not equipped with common law rights, ..."
All three of these terms are equivalent:
Federal citizenship = Citizen of the United States = Citizen of the District of ColumbiaSharon v Hill, 26 Fed. 337
"... prior to the adoption of the 14th Amendment, there were NO citizens of the United States."
State citizenship was the only citizenship prior to creation of the federal government.
Detailed explanation: 14th amendment did NOT create a national citizenship
FACT: The rights accruing from State citizenship are different than those that come via United States citizenship.
When you refer to your unalienable rights, you are stating that as a citizen of one of the fifty States, NOT as a U.S. citizen.
Twining v New Jersey, 211 U.S. 78 (1908)
"... fundamental rights inherent in State citizenship."
"… a Federal citizenship first came into being, not dependent upon the State constitutions, and not equipped with common law rights, ..."
Unalienable rights = fundamental rights = natural rights
Maxwell v Dow, 176 U.S. 581 (1900)
"We have cited these cases for the purpose of showing that the privileges and immunities of citizens of the United States (District of Columbia citizens) do NOT necessarily include all the rights protected by the first eight amendments to the Federal Constitution…"
Jones v Temmer, 829 Fed.Supp. 1226 (1993)
"Privileges and immunities clause of the 14th Amendment protects only those rights peculiar to being citizen of the federal government; it does NOT protect those rights which relate to State citizenship."
The Bill of Rights is only referring to your natural, aka fundamental, aka unalienable, rights, and these are secured by being a State citizen. The 14th Amendment only protects those (civil) rights that come from being a citizen of the federal government, aka a citizen of the United States, aka a citizen of the District of Columbia.
State citizenship = Unalienable rights
Federal citizenship = civil rights
FACT: The federal government stole all your citizens. Well, perhaps that’s a bit harsh, but…
Colgate v Harvey, 296 U.S. 404 (1935)
"A citizen of the United States (District of Columbia) is ipso facto and at the same time a citizen of the state in which he resides. While the 14th Amendment does not create a national citizenship, it has the effect of making that citizenship 'paramount and dominant' instead of 'derivative and dependent' upon state citizenship."
Any time one of your State citizens signs a legal document that contains a declaration that they are a U.S. citizen or citizen of the United States, that subordinates your citizens’ unalienable rights as a State citizen to the federal citizenship’s civil rights (see #1 above). Some argue that use of the SS# or zipcode is proof that you are in a federal area/district.
It should be obvious that, practically and legally speaking, all of your citizens are now federal citizens, causing their government-granted civil rights to be ‘paramount and dominant’ over their unalienable rights as State citizens. Were they fully informed as to the consequences of declaring US citizenship as opposed to just State citizenship?
FACT: One can be a State citizen without being a U.S. citizen
McDonel v The State, 90 Ind. 320 (1883), and the Supreme Ct. of Indiana
"... although he was not a citizen of the United States (District of Columbia), he was a citizen and voter of the State, under section 2 of article 2 of our State Constitution. One may be a citizen of a State and yet not a citizen of the United States."
Crosse v Board of Supervisors, 221 A.2d. 431 (1966), and Maryland Court of Appeals
"Both before and after the 14th Amendment to the Federal Constitution, it has NOT been necessary for a person to be a citizen of the United States (District of Columbia) in order to be a Citizen of his state.”
[citing U.S. v Cruikshank, Slaughter House Cases and Short v State 80 Md 392, 401-402 (1895), 31 A. 322]Van Valkenburg v Brown, 43 Cal 43 (1872)
"No white person born within the limits of the United States and subject to THEIR jurisdiction... or born without those limits, and subsequently naturalized under THEIR laws, owes his status of citizenship to the recent amendments to the Federal Constitution." [ referring to the 14th Amendment ]
* Note the use of the plural form "their" jurisdiction... CLEARLY, the term "United States" is legally referring to the States of the Union, and not the (singular) ‘District of Columbia’ United States, thus, this was referring ONLY to State citizenship.
Why are we in this situation? The root cause of the federal government’s out of control growth…
It’s really as simple as the 14th Amendment combined with ‘jurisdiction = power = revenue’. This amendment, although originally good in its intent and necessary at the time, has been used to usurp more and more power from the States, concentrating it in the federal government. Federal citizens are subject to laws that would not be applicable to someone who is only a State citizen. Half of the 54 Titles of the U.S. Code have not been enacted into positive law, and a successful rebuttal to those Titles would be much more likely by someone who is only claiming State citizenship.
What was good and necessary about the 14th Amendment…
It conferred a citizenship status on the freed slaves so they could bring lawsuits in federal courts. This was necessary at the time due to racism and prior court rulings, particularly the Dred Scott decision, Scott v Sanford, 19 Howard 393, which basically ruled that non-whites could not become State citizens, thus, they had no citizenship ‘status’, and no standing in the courts.Van Valkenburg v Brown, 43 Cal 43 (1872)
"The purpose of the 14th Amendment... was to confer the status of citizenship upon a numerous class of persons domiciled within the limits of the United States who could not be brought within operation of the naturalization laws because native born, and whose birth, though native, at the same time left them without citizenship. Such persons were not white persons but in the main were of African blood, who had been held in slavery in this country..."Slaughter House Cases, 83 U.S. 36 (1872), 16 Wall. 36, 21 L.Ed. 394
"The first clause of the 14th Article [Amendment] was primarily intended to confer citizenship on the negro race..."
What was bad about the 14th Amendment…
It was a band-aid solution that created a second-class citizenship with government-granted civil rights, and made those rights “paramount and dominant” over unalienable rights, also subjecting those newly created citizens of the United States to laws that would not apply to State citizens.In Hooven and Allison Co. v. Evatt, the court stated,
"In exercising its constitutional power to make all needful regulations respecting territory belonging to the United States (District of Columbia), Congress is not subject to the same constitutional limitations as when legislating for the United States (50 states).”
I added the ‘(District of Columbia)’ and ‘(50 states)’ in the above quote to help clarify the point. This is a clear example where a legal term (“United States”) is used in the same sentence, but the term has two different LEGAL meanings which must be inferred from the context. To translate this into something the average person can understand:
U.S. Congress is NOT limited by the U.S. Constitution when legislating for the District of Columbia, and its territories and District of Columbia citizens, aka, U.S. citizens.
U.S. Congress is LIMITED by the U.S. Constitution when legislating for the 50 States and their State citizens.
The federal government now claims ALL citizens in this country as their own. Who hasn’t signed something declaring that they are a U.S. citizen, or obtained a Social Security Number – everyone!
Is federal citizenship the legal nexus which makes State citizens subjugate their unalienable rights for civil rights, and therefore, subject to regulations/laws enacted via the ‘exclusive (unlimited) jurisdiction’ of the District of Columbia? Laws which could never be applied to State citizens due to Constitutional limitations?
He who has the citizens has the revenue/power…
Solution: A strategy for the States that will shrink the federal government and return to a more balanced sharing of power… peacefully!
Amend your State Constitutions so that ALL natural persons born or naturalized under the laws of a State, are Citizens of that State regardless of race. This makes the 14th Amendment no longer necessary, and U.S. citizenship obsolete. This corrects the Dred Scott decision (Scott v Sanford, 19 Howard 393) which effectively prevented non-whites from being State citizens, thus, requiring the 14th Amendment.
The political party to do this will win-over the vast majority of the Black vote.Provide a legal path/process for your citizens to revoke U.S. citizenship and reclaim only their State citizenship.
Educate your citizens and businesses that one can be just a State citizen and legally live and work in your State; that U.S. Code Title-26 and several other Titles may no longer apply to them.
Additionally, the US Congress should repeal the 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution and create an Amendment that is in accord with the new State amendments mentioned in #1.
Optional: Repeal the 17th Amendment and return selection of US Senators to State legislatures as originally implemented in the US Constitution. That’s why Congress is a Bicameral House. One house for each of the two sovereigns: House of Representatives for We the People, the Senate for the sovereign States.