Thread: We are not free under a democracy.

OK I gave the short version but I do like yours better Moogy, Well said.

Originally Posted by Moogy

Here's a quick and accuratee overview of the differences between a republic and democracy:

http://www.tax-freedom.com/ta19007.htm

Democracy or Republic ?
America IS NOT A PURE DEMOCRACY !!
Let's say it together now:

"I pledge alliegance, to the flag, of the United States of America, and to the REPUBLIC for which it stands .... "

The children don't say this Pledge of Alliegance in school anymore because it DIRECTLY CONTRADICTS THE GOVERNMENT PROPAGANDA IN AN IRREFUTABLE FASHION.

AMERICA IS A REPUBLIC, a constitutional Republic of a democratic (one man - one vote) nature. However, WE ARE NOT A DEMOCRACY where the majority rules. THAT IS GOVERNMENT PROPAGANDA DESIGNED TO CONDITION YOU TO ACCEPT THEIR INJUSTICE and believe that there is nothing that you can do about it. The difference between a Democracy and a Republic is that in a Republic there are certain things THAT CAN NEVER BE DONE NO MATTER HOW MANY PEOPLE WANT TO DO IT ! The rights of no individual or group can ever be removed or diminished (because that group may be currently unpopular (for whatever reason)), regardless of how many people vote to do so. In a Republic, even if the vote is 250 million to 1, that one cannot be thrown into slavery. In a pure democracy 51% of the men can vote the other 49% back into slavery if they wish. Or, they can vote to steal your property (sound familiar), BUT NOT IN A REPUBLIC (if the Constitution or the law forbids it, which ours DOES). Our founding fathers HATED democracy, recognizing that it is nothing more than social slavery to the poular hysteria of the masses (sound familiar). They wanted a representative (democratic) system, BUT NOT A pure DEMOCRACY, and they did not establish a democracy in the Constitution, they established a REPUBLIC a Constitutional Republic.

Things like "MAJORITY RULES" and "FAIR SHARE" are COMMUNISTIC CONCEPTS right out of The Communist Manifesto and from the communist maxims like "from each according to their ability, to each according to their need", attempting to justify the theft of private property by government under the PRETENSE of "redistribution to the poor" and "efficient utilization of national resources". BUT FOR SOME REASON THE STOLEN WEALTH NEVER SEEMS TO MAKE IT TO THE POOR, BUT INSTEAD ALWAYS ENDS UP IN THE POCKETS OF THE PARTY LEADERS AND BUREAUCRATS ! I won't even mention how efficient the Communist regimes of the world have shown themselves to be with their national resources.

Life is really very simple. People like to pretend that it is not, but it is. You have two choices in life: you can accept what you find, or you can work to change what you find into something better. You can stand up and fight, or you can lie down and die. Fail to do the one, and the other becomes inevitable. You choose for yourself,

"The battle, sir, is not to the strong alone; it is to the vigilant, the active, the brave, ... It is vain, sir, to extenuate the matter. Gentlemen cry peace, peace - but there is no peace. The war is actually begun ! The next gale that sweeps from the north will bring to our ears the clash of resounding arms ! Our brethren are already in the field ! Why stand we here idle ? What is it that gentlemen wish ? What would they have ? Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery ? Forbid it, Almighty God ! I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty, or give me death !" Patrick Henry

Collective hysteria, paranoia and insanity are the planned result of Government propaganda, issued under the pretense of "protecting the children", in order to effect rule by Government Anarchy (outside the law), without protest from the people. Their propaganda has been very effective here in America, wouldn't you agree ? Fortunately, like ALL government propaganda; NONE OF IT IS TRUE, and surely any government's claim to be acting to protect the children is exposed as PURE FRAUD when that same government actually repeatedly murders its own people's children (WACO & RUBY RIDGE). KILLIAN IS LYING TO YOU !!!!

Again, whether "we" are a democracy depends upon which "we" you are talking about. The sovereign states and the sovereign citizens thereof are republics and free republic citizens respectively. Those who claim "US citizenship" are unwittingly claiming citizenship in the federal zone, which is a democracy. You may not want to believe that the two separate entities and the two separate types of citizenship status exist, but they most certainly do, and this distinction is the key to understanding all sorts of laws and regulations that are otherwise quite bewildering.

All of the titles in the United States Code that are not shown as having been passed into positive law, for example, ARE NOT binding on sovereigns of the several states, but ARE binding on the citizens of the federal legislative democracy -- the federal zone. Almost all of the regulations in the Code of Federal Regulations are inapplicable to sovereigns of the several republic states, but are applicable to the citizens of the federal legislative democracy. You have to know who YOU are before you can accurately know what "we" are.

...in the federal zone, which is a democracy

Sorry, but this is incorrect. States nor federal government do not have the power or authority under one nation to supersede the core statutes of the nations formation; hence the power of a republic. If we had divisions that were true democracies, then they could (for example) vote on re-implementing slavery.

The act of engaging in democratic representation and following democratic government are two separate things. We may endorse the first, but most certainly do not the second.

However, the second is what the “powers to be” are trying to do; and when they are finished, they will be able to reinstate things such as slavery, hence the death of the republic and the birth of a true democracy – which I might add, has always failed throughout history.

Originally Posted by Moogy

...in the federal zone, which is a democracy

Sorry, but this is incorrect. States nor federal government do not have the power or authority under one nation to supersede the core statutes of the nations formation; hence the power of a republic. If we had divisions that were true democracies, then they could (for example) vote on re-implementing slavery.

The act of engaging in democratic representation and following democratic government are two separate things. We may endorse the first, but most certainly do not the second.

However, the second is what the “powers to be” are trying to do; and when they are finished, they will be able to reinstate things such as slavery, hence the death of the republic and the birth of a true democracy – which I might add, has always failed throughout history.

You are sadly misinformed, my friend. The exclusive jurisdiction over the federal zone is PLAINLY LAID OUT in the Constitution under Art. 1, sec. 8:

Clause 17:

To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings;...

and Art. IV, sec. 3, which reads as follows:

Clause 2:

The Congress shall have Power to dispose of and make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or other Property belonging to the United States; and nothing in this Constitution shall be so construed as to Prejudice any Claims of the United States, or of any particular State.

Now, note that this is followed immediately by sec. 4, which reads as follows:

Section. 4.
The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened) against domestic Violence.

Now, notice that the territories and properties are clearly distinct from the states and that Congress, by means of legislative democracy, is given "Power to dispose of and make all needful Rules and Regulations" for the federal properties and territories just as it has exclusive direct jurisdiction over the federal zone described in Art. 1, sec. 8.

Who, then, is guaranteed a republican form of government? Section 4 makes QUITE ABUNDANTLY CLEAR that it is the states, not the federal zone or its possessions, that are guaranteed a republican form of government.

So what about the federal zone? The all-important Hooven decision makes clear that the federal possessions and territories ARE NOT under the protections or constraints of the Constitution:

... [T]he United States** may acquire territory by conquest or by treaty, and may govern it through the exercise of the power of Congress conferred by Section 3 of Article IV of the Constitution .... In exercising this power, Congress is not subject to the same constitutional limitations, as when it is legislating for the United States***. ... And in general the guaranties [sic] of the Constitution, save as they are limitations upon the exercise of executive and legislative power when exerted for or over our insular possessions, extend to them only as Congress, in the exercise of its legislative power over territory belonging to the United States**, has made those guaranties [sic] applicable.

[Hooven & Allison Co. v. Evatt, 324 U.S. 652 (1945)]

So clearly you are misinformed as to whether or not there are separate and distinct entities, one being the federal zone and one being the republican union of the several states.

I'm not trying to be confrontational or difficult; I just happen to be more well-versed in this aspect of constitutional law than you appear to be.

No it's cool - this is good information (for everyone).

I'm a bit confused though:

... [T]he United States** may acquire territory by conquest or by treaty, and may govern it through the exercise of the power of Congress conferred by Section 3 of Article IV of the Constitution .... In exercising this power, Congress is not subject to the same constitutional limitations, as when it is legislating for the United States***. ... And in general the guaranties [sic] of the Constitution, save as they are limitations upon the exercise of executive and legislative power when exerted for or over our insular possessions, extend to them only as Congress, in the exercise of its legislative power over territory belonging to the United States**, has made those guaranties [sic] applicable.

[Hooven & Allison Co. v. Evatt, 324 U.S. 652 (1945)]

What exactly is that? An amendment?

I am very confused though as to what is held as federal and what is held as state jurisdiction. According to the consitution with its current amendments, each state is a republic, but the federal government supercedes republic foundation?

So if the federal government (for example only) wanted to bring back slavery, they could do so? Would states then refuse to adhere to it?

Please, it appears you are exceptionally well-versed in this area - educate me!

Originally Posted by Moogy

No it's cool - this is good information (for everyone).

I'm a bit confused though:

... [T]he United States** may acquire territory by conquest or by treaty, and may govern it through the exercise of the power of Congress conferred by Section 3 of Article IV of the Constitution .... In exercising this power, Congress is not subject to the same constitutional limitations, as when it is legislating for the United States***. ... And in general the guaranties [sic] of the Constitution, save as they are limitations upon the exercise of executive and legislative power when exerted for or over our insular possessions, extend to them only as Congress, in the exercise of its legislative power over territory belonging to the United States**, has made those guaranties [sic] applicable.

[Hooven & Allison Co. v. Evatt, 324 U.S. 652 (1945)]

What exactly is that? An amendment?

I am very confused though as to what is held as federal and what is held as state jurisdiction. According to the consitution with its current amendments, each state is a republic, but the federal government supercedes republic foundation?

So if the federal government (for example only) wanted to bring back slavery, they could do so? Would states then refuse to adhere to it?

Please, it appears you are exceptionally well-versed in this area - educate me!

The above is a Supreme Court decision. Here are a couple of others that may help clarify the peculiar situation re: our nation versus its contradistinct federal zone:

This statute is one of universal application within the territorial limits of the United States*, and is not limited to those portions which are within the exclusive jurisdiction of the national government, such as the District of Columbia. Generally speaking, within any state of this Union the preservation of the peace and the protection of person and property are the functions of the state government, and are not part of the primary duty, at least, of the nation. The laws of congress in respect to those matters do not extend into the territorial limits of the states, but have force only in the District of Columbia, and other places that are within the exclusive jurisdiction of the national government.

[Caha v. United States, 152 U.S. 211, 215 (1894)]

Here the court is making clear that there are differing types of legislation for the several states versus those for the federal zone.

In the following case, cited in Corpus Juris Secundum, the odd relationship between the legislative federal entity and the several states is further clarified:

The United States government is a foreign corporation with respect to a state. [citing In re Merriam's Estate, 36 N.E. 505, 141 N.Y. 479, affirmed U.S. v. Perkins, 16 S.Ct. 1073, 163 U.S. 625, 41 L.Ed 287]

[19 C.J.S. 883]

Indeed, the federal entity has the character of a separate foreign corporate state, particualrly when making foreign legislation for its own internal operation. This was recognized quite early in the history of this nation, as Justice Marshall made clear back in 1820:

... [Counsel] has contended, that Congress must be considered in two distinct characters. In one character as legislating for the states; in the other, as a local legislature for the district [of Columbia]. In the latter character, it is admitted, the power of levying direct taxes may be exercised; but, it is contended, for district purposes only, in like manner as the legislature of a state may tax the people of a state for state purposes. Without inquiring at present into the soundness of this distinction, its possible influence on the application in this district of the first article of the constitution, and of several of the amendments, may not be altogether unworthy of consideration.
[Loughborough v. Blake, 15 U.S. 317]
[5 L.Ed. 98 (1820)]

What Marshall was saying in this decision was that the constitutional prohibition on an unapportioned direct tax applied only to the states, and that no such prohibition existed with respect to the federal district.

Where things got loopy was upon passage of the grossly misunderstood Amendment XIV. This amendment not only made freed slaves and naturalized citizens direct citizens of the federal zone AS WELL AS of any state in which they may reside, but it left open the possibility of this "dual citizenship" applying to anyone else under its jurisdiction. The story of how crooked politicians, and most especially the monstrous FDR, connived most citizens out of their natural state citizenship and into "United States citizenship" over which Congress had unfettered democratic legislative control, is far too long and involved to go into in this thread. The end result, however, is that most citizens now have residency in a state but citizenship in the federal zone, making them direct subjects of the federal legislative democracy. That's why things like FDR's Gun Control ACT were able to pass constitutional muster, and why other legislation that seems to be blatantly unconstitutional is allowed to stand by the courts. The presumption is that any given person in question has become a federal citizen by virtue of the Social Security agreement or some other acceptance of benefit or privilege, or even by simply having been misled into errantly declaring their citizenship as such. So any case brought challenging such a statute is directed to the branch of federal court that handles INTERNAL (to the federal zone) cases rather than cases between the sovereigns of the several states and the federal zone. That's the difference between US District Court and District US Court.

Yes, it's confusing and intentionally so.

My point would again be that regardless what the Supreme Court says it is nothing more then a decision or opinion. If that opinion changes or creates law in any way it is violation of the constitution. Only the legislative branch can create law. So if in there opinion they miss interpret the law making it more restrictive then it truly is, then is it indeed law or is that legislating from the bench?
Does that then become case law? Case law is not made by the legislative branch but is created in a trial therefore is illegal. That is why we have trial by jury. In a jury trial if the law is found to be unjust then I would contend that it is the duty of every American to find the defendant not guilty. If the law violates the constitution then it is unjust as that is the law of the land so to speak. This is what our forefathers intended in my opinion and why we have the double jeopardy clause in the constitution. This way the juries can nullify the law without reprisal and keep our legislators in check.

OK, I'm going back to read this thread completely.

I just had to take a quick minute and take issue with something said.

Pres. Bush is neither a Texan nor a cowboy.

He is an eastern elite who, along with his family, uses Texas for political and financial gain. Not a Texan.

He is not a cowboy - I know cowboys - and he is not one, take my word for it.