Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Posted: 9/6/2004 12:23:31 PM EST
The ultimate parens patriae of every American citizen is the federal authority.
[State of S. C. v. Katzenbach, 86 S.Ct. 803 (1966)
Federal government is ultimate parens patriae of every American citizen.

Baxley v. Rutland, 409 F.Supp. 1249 M.D.Ala. (1976)

The United States is the ultimate parens patriae of every American citizen.]

What is the background for this relationship between Federal government and the United States in the singular and the American citizen.
----------------------------------------------------------
The United States Supreme Court in balancing federalism in the early days of the republic equated the state police powers with the parens patriae powers of the states and prohibited the national government from encroaching on state functions as the Framers intended.

This prohibition against the national government using the general police powers of the states was enforced by firmly separating them from the Spending/General Welfare, Art. I, Sec. 8, Cl. 1, responsibilities of the national government.
If the Spending/General Welfare authority included the parens patriae common law trust powers then the
national government could determine what is in the national or best interests of every citizen or person
within the United States without regard to the limitations agreed to in the ratification of the
Constitution of the United States.

The United States Supreme Court also carefully separated the Territorial powers of the national government contained in the Property Clause, Art. IV, Sec. 3, from the powers that vested in a state upon statehood preventing the United States from retaining parens patriae authority after statehood.

There were two exceptions based exclusively on race to the popular sovereignty separation of powers. These were incorporated into the Constitution itself in the Fugitive Slave Clause, Art. IV, Sec. 2, Cl.? and the Indian Commerce Clause, Art. I, Sec. 8, Cl. 1.

This uniquely American concept of federalism generally succeeded until the slavery issue tore the nation apart and forced a confrontation between the idealistic natural law principle of equality before the law and the political reality of traditional racial prejudice.

The conflict over slavery began with the enforcement of the Fugitive Slave Act of 1793 and the refusal of
many Northern States to use local state officials to assist slaveowners in the recapture of their ìproperty.î

Justice Story in the opinion of Prigg v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, (cite 1842), ruled that a federal
constitutional clause enforced through enactment of a federal law did not require state officers to enforce
its provisions. Almost twenty years later, Chief Justice Taney concluded the states had no authority to enforce the Fugitive Slave Act of 1793 as a federal law in Kentucky v. Dennison, (cite 1861).

Because the Prigg decision made the Fugitive Slave Act of 1793 very difficult to enforce, a revised Act was passed in 1850 copying the Indian system which created federal commissioners in each federal court district whether in a state or territory of the United States to hear claims by slaveowners and decide whether the slaveowner presented a sufficient claim to be executed by federal marshalls. The Fugitive Slave Act of 1850 was the first law ever adopted by Congress that used the territorial power of the Property Clause, Art. IV, Sec. 3, Cl. 2, to avoid the legal process required in the state courts by the state constitutions and their statements of rights. The territorial power was used to create the federal commissioners who executed the law using the federal territorial power within a territory or a sovereign state. Therefore, under the Fugitive Slave Act of 1850, no former slave even in a state that had recognized the former slave as a state citizen had any rights to due process of law or any constitutional rights in the state or federal courts under this exclusively federal administrative process. Neither had a violator of it. [see Abelman v. Boothe]
---------------------------------------------------------------

Whenever common law powers are claimed for the national government, the relationship between Government and governed is the common law relationship. The territorial power of the Property Clause, Article. IV. Section. 3. Cl. 2. and the common law conquest and war powers are one and the same. Those conquered are in bondage. Per Bracton, the purpose of common law government is to capture people and acquire territory for the wealth of the realm. This common law conquest and war purpose is what the supreme Court upholds via the Property Clause.

"The United States Government may be the trustee of a charitable trust," Russell v. Allen, 107 U.S. 163: 27 L.Ed. 397, and further; The United States or a state has capacity to take and hold property upon a charitable trust, but in absence of a statute otherwise providing, the charitable trust is unenforceable against the United States or a state."

The certificate of birth itself is not a gift because it is never relinquished. However, your first copy of the certificate of birth is a gift and, at the same time it, used in your hands it is evidence of your status as beneficiary of a public charitable trust.

When the name and identity of the person of the certificate of birth is federally registered, property is taken and held upon a charitable trust. Whose property is taken and held ? I think it is indubitably State's property. You certainly have no property interest in a record which was created and maintained at the expense of the State. In this actof federal registration, the Spending/General Welfare, Art. I, Sec. 8, Cl. 1. power and the territorial power of the Property Clause, Art. IV, Sec. 3, Cl. 2. are combined in parens patriae common law trust powers and the national government can determine what is in the national or best interests of every citizen or person within the United States without regard to the limitations agreed to in the ratification of the Constitution of the United States.


Erie held that the law of the state shall apply in the absence of the Constitution or Acts of Congress. First, Erie does not say the incorporated State, but the unincorporated state. Secondly, Erie does not differentiate between foreign or domestic commerce, nor does it differentiate between local or general Acts of Congress. Erie holds that Property Law, which upholds the power of the Property Clause, shall apply in the absence of laws of Congress; the Constitution itself provides that "nothing in this Constitution shall be so construed as to Prejudice any Claims of the United States, or of any particular State." Common law is the foundation of all property law in these United States, except perhaps in Louisiana. The right to plead common law is a right retained by the 9th amendment.

The door to liberty or manumission from bondage under the common law conquest and war powers is to divest the State of its common law trust powers over your name and identity and over the name and identity of your kin.
The key to the door for yourself is the date of your attainment of full age, which by law is the date before your anniversary of birth, according to the Commentaries on the Laws of England by Blackstone.
Link Posted: 9/6/2004 12:41:45 PM EST
So, are you for it or against it?
Link Posted: 9/6/2004 12:43:43 PM EST
I'm still trying to figure out what "it" is...
Link Posted: 9/6/2004 12:48:06 PM EST
From

Lectlaw.com


PARENS PATRIAE - Lat. "parent of his country." Used when the government acts on behalf of a child or mentally ill person. Refers to the "state" as the guardian of minors and incompetent people.

Ah oh, I'm in trouble


GM
Link Posted: 9/6/2004 12:54:27 PM EST
[Last Edit: 9/6/2004 12:56:05 PM EST by AR-10]
Well, are you gonna drop the other shoe or not, 2347??

Are you trying to say that Uncle Sugar owns everything I possess?


What is your point, spelled out slowly for those of us without the benefit of higher education.
Link Posted: 9/6/2004 12:56:02 PM EST

Originally Posted By AR-10:
Well, are you gonna drop the other shoe or not, 2347??

Are you trying to say that Sugar Daddy owns everything I possess?



Don;t pay your property or vehicle taxes and find out!!!!!!!
Link Posted: 9/6/2004 12:57:55 PM EST
Well, big news there, TimJ. I'd post the LOL smily, but the truth hurts a bit.

Still, I'm waiting to see where the originator wants to stear this thread.
Link Posted: 9/6/2004 1:50:37 PM EST
waiting...
Top Top