Showing posts with label United State Constitution. Show all posts
Showing posts with label United State Constitution. Show all posts

Monday, September 22, 2014

Undermining The Constitution A HISTORY OF LAWLESS GOVERNMENT (Part 12)

The United States Supreme Court.
The United States Supreme Court. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)
By Thomas James Norton

It is difficult to tell which of the half score of Socialistic acts of Congress of the Roosevelt Revolution was the most far-reaching in its threat to the Republic. But the competition for evil lies between the Fascist Tennessee Valley Authority of May 18, 1933, and the Social Security Act of August 14, 1935.
When President Roosevelt signed A Bill to Alleviate the Hazards of Old Age, Unemployment, Illness, and Dependency, to Establish a Social Insurance Board in the Department of Labor, to Raise Revenue, and for Other Purposes, he made this comment:
"If the Senate and House of Representatives in this long and arduous session had done nothing more than pass this bill, the session would be regarded as historic for all time."
Most complete abandonment of constitutional principle
It will certainly stand apart forever as a complete departure from the Constitution as expounded by its writers,

notably Madison, afterward President, and James Wilson, later a Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States; by President Monroe in a celebrated veto message of a bill for "public improvements," the beginning of the most wasteful of all squanderings by Congress of the money of the taxpayers; by President Jackson, who vetoed every appropriation bill not clearly for national, as distinguished from personal, welfare; by Presidents Tyler, Polk, Pierce, Grant, Arthur, and Cleveland.
The "hazards of old age, unemployment, illness and dependency" are subjects (if of any government) for the police power of the States, which has been defined as having to do with "the health, morals, safety, education, and general well-being of the people."
"The Federal Constitution forms a happy combination in this respect," wrote Madison in No. 10 of The Federalist; "the great and aggregate interests being referred to the National, the local and particular to the State legislatures."
No police power was granted by the people through the Constitution to Congress.
And "Congress is not empowered," wrote Chief Justice Marshall in 1824 (9 Wheaton 1), "to tax for those purposes which are in the exclusive province of the States."[1]
States cannot abdicate their police power
It was held by the Supreme Court (219 U. S. 270,282) as late as January, 1911, that the police power inhering in the States cannot be surrendered by them.
1. While the Social Security Act gathers money from the employer and the employee, it provides that money so collected shall go into the funds of the United States and that bonds shall be issued against it. Of course, it is the taxpayers who must eventually redeem such bonds.

There is no stronger principle of American constitutional law than that forbidding the delegation of power. For a decade and a half the Newspaper has told us of powers granted by Congress to the President. It has no powers that it can grant or give away. The reports by the Newspaper were constitutionally nonsensical. Yet they affected the public mind, untaught in the Constitution, to accept as valid the abdication -- not the delegation or grant -- of powers by what came to be known as "a rubber-stamp Congress."
Abdication of constitutional duties by Congress
Congress permitted the President and his nonelected advisers to write bills, as George III sent bills to Parliament against the American Colonies, and Congress passed them. But that was abdication of power by Congress, not delegation or grant.
So, too, the States cannot part with their powers or any portion of them. Their power of police, especially, over the welfare of the people they cannot surrender, as the decision of the Supreme Court just before cited shows. Therefore, the rush of the States, like children in the street to whom a handful of coins has been thrown, to enact compliant legislation in order to get "gifts" of their own money from Washington under A Bill to Alleviate the Hazards of Old Age, Unemployment, Illness, and Dependency, to Establish a Social Insurance Board in the Department of Labor, to Raise Revenue, and for Other Purposes, was an unconstitutional abdication by the States of their obligations to the people. The liberties of the people were grossly transgressed.
On the police power resident in the States, Judge Cooley,

recognized half a century ago as the leading constitutionalist of his time, had this to say in volume 2 of the 8th edition of Constitutional Limitations, page 1232:
"In the American constitutional system the power to establish the ordinary regulations of police has been left to the individual States, and it cannot be taken from them, either wholly or in part, and exercised under legislation by Congress."
States and Congress join in unconstitutional action
Yet that is exactly what was brought to pass by a usurping Congress and abdicating States when the scheme for social security through Washington was set up.
On the same page Judge Cooley said further:
"Neither can the National Government, through any of its Departments, or offices, assume any supervision of the police regulations of the States."
When, in September, 1787, the Constitutional Convention sent the new Fundamental Law to the States for ratification, only one of them was opposed to it from the start -- or before the start. New York convoked a convention headed by Governor Clinton which was three fourths against the proposed form of government. Some able men in other States were not wholly satisfied with the Constitution. The objections which they expressed in the ratifying conventions resulted in a Bill of Bights in addition to the limitations on power amounting to a Bill of Rights written in the original Instrument. Several delegates to the Constitutional Convention went home without signing the new form of Government. Alexander Hamilton was the only signer for New York.

Elbridge Gerry of Massachusetts, one of the ablest men in the Convention, did not sign. Edmund Randolph of Virginia and George Mason of Virginia, the author of The Virginia Bill of Rights, did not sign. Nor did William Houstoun of Georgia.
Most important of original objections to Constitution
The commonest and strongest objection was that the identity and sovereignty of the States were not sufficiently guarded. It was this objection that brought out the Tenth Amendment, to prevent Congress from invading the States.
In the convention in New York the point here under discussion was most strongly urged, namely, that the General Welfare Clause gave to Congress powers without limit. The States would eventually be swallowed by the central Government, which properly could deal only with subjects strictly national and international.
Yet the Housing Act of 1937 declared the policy of Congress to be to provide for the general welfare of the Nation by employing its funds and credit to assist the States to relieve unemployment and to safeguard health, and for other like purposes. In 1945 the Supreme Court, in an opinion by Justice Roberts (none dissenting), held (323 U. S. 329) that legislation constitutional!
Thus the objection which chiefly evoked the Bill of Rights, and especially the Tenth Amendment, went for naught.
And in 1941 the Court, in an opinion by Chief Justice Stone (none dissenting), held (312 U. S. 100) that under the Fair Labor Standards Act of Congress of 1938 the Nation can exercise police power in the States! That over-

ruled a great decision (247 U. S. 251), rendered in 1918, that Congress is prevented by the Tenth Amendment from regulating labor conditions in the States.
The first and most important grant of power
The very first grant of power is this:
"Congress shall have power to lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States."
In the convention in New York it was argued that the power to tax and spend for "the general Welfare of the United States" was a grant without limitation at all. That was answered by James Madison, the reporter of the Constitutional Convention, from whose notes day by day we get most of our knowledge of the course of deliberations. In the history of governments and in general fitness for his task he was second to no other man in the Convention.
Madison, along with Hamilton and Jay, was writing a series of 85 papers explanatory of the Constitution and addressed "to the people of the State of New York" to convince them that their objecting convention should ratify the new form of government. Those papers became known as The Federalist, the most brilliant work on our Constitution. They have been translated into French, German, Spanish, and Portuguese.
Objections of States cleared away by Madison
Of the argument in New York, which was made in other States too, that power in Congress for "the general Wel-

fare" was authority to do its will throughout the land, Madison wrote, evidently in anger:
"No stronger proof could be given of the distress under which these writers labor for objections than their stooping to such a misconstruction."
By "stooping" Madison plainly meant that they knew better and were unfair in their opposition to the General Welfare Clause of the Constitution.
Then he proceeded to explain the language under the established rules of interpretation. Had no other enumeration of powers been made than for taxing and spending, he said, then there might be some color to the objection that Congress would be without restraint -- though that would be an "awkward way of describing an authority to legislate in all possible cases."
"But what color can the objection have," he asked, "when the specification of the objects alluded to by these general terms immediately follows, and is not even separated by a longer pause than a semi-colon?"
Limitation on power of Congress to spend
That is, the grant of power to tax and spend for the "common Defence and general Welfare" is followed in the same sentence by all the other grants -- to borrow money, to regulate commerce, and so on. The first grant of all -- to tax and spend -- is inseparable in the context from all the other grants.
The power to tax and spend was granted to effectuate all of the seventeen succeeding paragraphs of clauses as well as the one in which it appears.
Madison met this question again in the very first Cong-

ress of the new Government, in which he was a member of the House of Representatives, and where he assembled and formulated twelve of the leading objections to the Constitution that came in from the ratifying conventions in the States for submission as amendments, ten of which were ratified and became known as the Bill of Rights.
First appearance of the "Subsidy"
A bill was introduced by a member from New England to pay a bounty to cod fishermen, to subsidize a private interest, as agriculture and many more private interests have been subsidized by the "New Deal." He spoke at length with great vigor against the bill. Stating that those who wrote the Constitution and those who ratified it conceived it to be not an indefinite Government, but a limited one, "tied down to the specified powers, which explain and define the general terms," he added:
"If Congress can employ money indefinitely to the general welfare, and are the sole and supreme judges of the general welfare, they may take the care of religion into their own hands; they may appoint teachers in every State, county and parish and pay them out of their public treasury; they may take into their own hands the education of children, establishing in like manner schools throughout the Union; they may assume the provision of the poor. . . . Were the power of Congress to be established in the latitude contended for, it would subvert the very foundations, and transmute the very nature of the limited Government established by the people of America."
The consequences of the misapplication by Congress of the money of the taxpayers -- a scourge of mounting debt

and cumulative deficits -- establish Madison as a major prophet.
Hamilton, as well as Madison, rejected the contention strongly urged against the Constitution, that it left the National Government with unlimited power to do its will, and in No. 83 of The Federalist he said (italics his):
"The plan of the Convention declares that the power of Congress, or, in other words, of the National Legislature, shall extend to certain enumerated cases. This specification of particulars evidently excluded all pretension to a general legislative authority, because an affirmative grant of special powers would be absurd, as well as useless, if a general authority was intended."
Article I, Section 8 sets boundaries to constitutional power
There is no power in Congress beyond the boundaries of those eighteen paragraphs of clauses.
Certainly James Madison and Alexander Hamilton should have known what the purpose of the Constitutional Convention was. New York, by ratifying the new form of government, accepted what they said. Other States doubtless ratified on their explanation.
Abraham Baldwin of Georgia, a member of the Constitutional Convention, said in Congress in 1798 that "to provide for the common Defence and general Welfare" had "never been considered as a source of legislative power, as it is only a member introduced to limit the other parts of the sentence." That is, it limits the purposes for which Congress can "lay and collect taxes" and exert its other granted powers.

The legal scholar of the Convention speaks
But there was another man in the Constitutional Convention, the ablest lawyer, as Madison was the ablest historian -- James Wilson, a scholar from Edinburgh and from one of the Temples in London, who explained the taxing and spending power in a course of lectures to what afterwards became the University of Pennsylvania, as Madison had done. He said in part:
"The National Government was intended to promote the 'general Welfare.' For this reason Congress have power to regulate commerce . . . and to promote the progress of science and of useful arts by securing for a time to authors and inventors an exclusive right to their compositions and discoveries."
In this way he proceeded from the Patent and Copyright Clause to explain all the other clauses in section 8 granting power. He made it very clear that Congress was to "provide for the common Defence and general Welfare" by exerting the powers granted to it in the seventeen paragraphs following the first, by which it was authorized "to lay and collect taxes."
Thus, three members of the Constitutional Convention have spoken on this point -- Madison, Baldwin, and Wilson -- and none of them thought that the General Welfare Clause, which has been construed as a limitation on the activities of Congress rather than a grant of power, authorized the Legislative Department to get into anything even remotely resembling a Quixotic adventure "To Alleviate the Hazards of Old Age, Unemployment, Illness, and Dependency, to Establish a Social Security Insurance

Board in the Department of Labor, to Raise Revenue, and for Other Purposes."
General Welfare brilliantly defined by Jefferson
Although Jefferson was in Paris while the Constitutional Convention was sitting, he was in close communication with Madison and other delegates. He knew the Constitution. In a profoundly able letter to Albert Gallatin in 1817 he discussed the General Welfare Clause on which the Social Security Act was based (italics inserted):
"You will have learned that an act for internal improvement, after passing both Houses, was negatived by the President. The act was founded, avowedly, on the principle that the phrase in the Constitution which authorizes Congress 'to lay taxes, to pay the debts and provide for the general welfare,' was anextension of the powers specifically enumerated to whatever would promote the general welfare; and this, you know, was the Federal doctrine. Whereas our tenet ever was, and, indeed, it is almost the only landmark which now divides the Federalists and the Republicans, that Congress had not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare, but was restrained to those specifically enumerated; and that, as it was never meant that they should provide for that welfare but by the exercise of the enumerated powers, so it could not have meant that they should raise money for purposes which the enumeration did not place under their action; consequently, that the specification of powers is a limitation on the purposes for which they may raise money.
"I think the passage and rejection of this bill a fortunate incident. Every State will certainly concede the power; and

this will be a national confirmation of the grounds of appeal to them, and will settle forever the meaning of this phrase, which, by a mere grammatical quibble, has countenanced the General Government in a claim of universal power. For in the phrase 'to lay taxes, to pay the debts and provide for the general welfare,' it is a mere question of syntax, whether the two last infinitives are governed by the first, or are distinct and co-ordinate powers; a question unequivocally decided by the exact definition of powers immediately following."
That early interpretation should have been conclusive
That exposition by Jefferson, applied to a practical case in legislation, is perhaps the most illuminating that has been made.
Six years later, Jefferson returned to the subject (italics inserted):
"I have been blamed for saying that a prevalence of the doctrine of consolidation would one day call for reformation or revolution. I answer by asking if a single State of the Union would have agreed to the Constitution had it given all powers to the General Government? If the whole opposition to it did not proceed from the jealousy and fear of every State of being subjected to the other States in matters merely its own? And if there is any reason to believe the States more disposed now than then to acquiesce in this general surrender of all their rights and powers to a consolidated government, one and undivided?"

Jefferson's reasoning applied to present-day legislation
That is to say, it was inconceivable to Jefferson that the representatives of the people in Congress could ever so far disregard our constitutional history and purpose as to strip their States of local authority by abdicating their police power through such acts as these:
The Agricultural Adjustment Actof May 12, 1933
The Tennessee Valley Authorityof May 18, 1933
The National Industrial Recovery Actof June 16, 1933
The Federal Surplus Commodities Corporationof October, 1933
The Bituminous Coal Actof May, 1935
The National Labor Relations Actof July, 1935
The Social Security Actof August, 1935

Not a State would have ratified the Constitution, Jefferson declared, had it thought such a "revolution" possible.
We have suffered a constitutional revolution without use of amendments in accordance with Article V. That has come about through what Senator Thomas H. Benton of Missouri used to call "latitudinarian construction." That form of construction has been applied to the Commerce Clause and the General Welfare Clause. No other clause in the Constitution, even with the gross twisting which the ardent "progressists" employ, could be used by them in the framing of a bill for flouting the Tenth Amendment, the great bulwark of the States.

Did President Cleveland foresee present-day unconstitutionalism?
In 1888, President Cleveland, evidently noticing the tendency of representatives of the States in the Congress of the Union to favor measures for degrading their commonwealths, gave them in his fourth annual message this lesson in constitutional law:
"The preservation of the partitions between the proper subjects of Federal and local care and regulation is of such importance under the Constitution, which is the law of our very existence, that no consideration of expediency or sentiment should tempt us to enter upon doubtful ground.
"We have undertaken to discover and proclaim the richest blessings of a free Government, with the Constitution as our guide. Let us follow the way it points out -- it will not mislead us."
In the next year President Cleveland vetoed a bill appropriating money from the National Treasury for the purchase of seed wheat to relieve the farmers in a drought-stricken area. In that message he defined the meaning of the General Welfare Clause as Madison and the others hereinbefore quoted interpreted it (italics inserted):
"Under the limited and delegated authority conferred by the Constitution upon the General Government the statement of the purposes for which money may be lawfully raised by taxation in any form declares also the limits of the objects for which it may be expended. . . . This 'general welfare of the United States,' as used in the Constitution, can only justify appropriations for national objects and for purposes which have to do with the pros

perity, the growth, the honor, or the peace and dignity of the Nation."
What would Mr. Cleveland think could he know that the Federal Government now subsidizes the farmer, pensions everybody, and plans to medicate and hospitalize the whole population? And no amendment to the Constitution authorized the change!
Supreme Court ignored history and learning on General Welfare
Notwithstanding all that members of the Constitutional Convention had written in explanation of the General Welfare Clause, which they had drafted with the care that marked every line of the Constitution, the Supreme Court of the United States, on May 24, 1937, three months after the President had attacked the Judiciary as inefficient and obstructive and asked Congress to recast it to his liking, in an opinion (301 U. S. 548) by Justice Cardozo, with dissents by Justices Sutherland, Van Devanter, McReynolds, and Butler, used this language:
"It is too late today for the argument to be heard with tolerance that in a crisis so extreme the use of the moneys of the Nation to relieve the unemployed and their dependents is a use for any purpose narrower than the pro-motion of the General Welfare."
That expressed the popular notion of the party in power, that a "crisis," or an "emergency," or an "extraordinary emergency," such as the President[2] was given to declaring
2. The field of the President's authority is very limited. It does not include the States, to say nothing of the external world. In No. 75 of The Federalist Madison pointed that out:
"The execution of the laws and the employment of the common strength, either for this purpose or for the common defence, seems to comprise all the functions of the Executive Magistrate."

as difficulties unfolded, and as Congress had declared in the National Industrial Recovery Act and its companion pieces, confers on Congress powers which the Constitution did not and which it therefore withheld. The Constitution withheld more powers from Congress than it granted. Besides that precaution, the Tenth Amendment was added to warn Congress not to "grab" power in any circumstances whatsoever, especially against the States.
Two fundamental errors in decision of Supreme Court
In the opinion by Justice Cardozo it is assumed that because Washington could give relief it had the power to do so. It points out that for a given time Washington gave emergency relief to the amount of $2,929,307,366, while the States expended only $689,291,802 and local subdivisions $777,675,366.
But official figures assembled by the United States News for June 18, 1938, showed that for five years the people of the States had paid to the National Government in taxes $20,411,847,208 and received in "benefits" from their own money $18,267,527,000.
They gave to Washington more than 2 billion over what was returned to them. Those figures are absolute disproof of the statement of the Court, that "the fact developed quickly that the States were unable to give the requisite relief."
But even had the States been unable to give relief, that fact would not have conferred power on Congress to take

over police jurisdiction in the States, which the Constitution had not granted.
Instead of the first American coup d'├ętat, which was executed by the Federal Emergency Relief Act of May 12, 1933, Congress should have repealed the Income Tax Law and the Estate Tax Law, by which it had been draining the States of their resources, and let the States, in close contact with the needy, go ahead and perform their police duties of relief. It chose revolution.
Rapid spread of the evil of subsidies
"Federal aid" to States for relief, for schools, and for what you will has grown worse and worse. In a report by the floor leader of the House of Representatives on January 8,1950, to the Ways and Means Committee it was shown that for the fiscal year ending June 30,1949, the people of the States paid in Federal taxes $41,864,542,295, while they got back in "aid" from their own money $5,551,054,046.
As Just before stated, for the five years ending June 30, 1938, the States paid in Federal taxes $20,411,347,208, or less than one half of what they paid in the last one year. That is what may be described as "going some." The "grants in aid" for the five-year term averaged 3 billion, 653 million, while for the last one year they were 5 billion, 551 million -- and all unconstitutional.
Arkansas, Mississippi, and New Mexico are the only States that got back anything near to half what they had paid.[3]
3. A vigilant reporter for the United Press discovered that the king of the Hoboes was visiting a friend in Pittsburgh and he interviewed His Highness for the edification of the country. The King, who has made several trips around the world, has concluded that modern travel (Cont. on 198)

The situation is fantastic, for it has often been shown in Congress that there is not a State in the Union that is not in a stronger financial position than the National Government. The States need no "aid" from Washington -- except for political purposes. That's what is going on, reminding of the "bread and circuses" which the politicians provided for the populace of sinking Rome.
Finally, on the decision in the Social Security case, it was based not only on the erroneous assumption of the inability of the States to perform their duties in giving relief, but also on what Justice Cardozo termed "a cyclical depression." To be sure, permanent legislation is not justified by a cyclical depression.
Constitutionality of Social Security Act not for Supreme Court
In the light of the reading of "general Welfare of the United States" which was given by Madison and other members of the Constitutional Convention, and by Jefferson, who was in constant communication with members while the Convention was sitting, and by several Presidents, it was not for the Executive Department, the Legislative Department, or the Judicial Department, or all of them together, to give the words a different meaning.
(3. Cont from 197) is attended by too many risks, and he has therefore concluded to become a lobbyist for "Federal aid" to young men possessed by the urge to wander. He believes that all such young men should have each year a vacation of two weeks at the expense of the Government. "Then they could travel safely and in style," he said.
Is that any more absurd than that the wealthy State of Kansas, which, up to an act for pensions to its sons who served in World War I, had no debt at all, should receive "Federal aid" in 1950 for the benefit of its needy in the amount of $18,000,000? The supervisor of welfare reported that fact in June.
[Kansas does not differ from the other states. Degeneracy is general. To them the Constitution is a dead letter.]

As in 1895 the Supreme Court, refusing to strike out a limitation in the Constitution on taxation, referred the proponents of the Income Tax Law of 1894 to the Ultimate Power, to the people as the only Constitution makers, to write an amendment if they should deem that expedient, so in the Social Security case the Supreme Court should have held the act of Congress unconstitutional and referred the "planners" and their project to the people for disposition. Then a proposal to let Congress "into a boundless field of power no longer susceptible of any definition" would have brought the answer from those who alone had it.
That course would have been what Justice Brandeis called "procedural regularity," which he said must always be followed in resolving constitutional problems.
Where authority over welfare resides
It is within the police power of the State to protect the farsighted, the frugal, and the temperate from the tax burden of caring for the indifferent, the unthrifty, the profligate, and the handicapped when they become unable to care for themselves. It may require persons not voluntarily carrying insurance in standard companies to do so, if they cannot show resources making insurance unnecessary. And it can compel employers of such persons to make payroll deductions for the payment of insurance premiums through the working years of the employees.
The United States has no constitutional interest in this subject.
This discussion may well be closed by a quotation from a sound decision of the Supreme Court on January 6, 1936, holding the Agricultural Adjustment Act unconstitutional

as not authorized by the General Welfare Clause. Later, on May 24, 1937, the Court, as seen, sustained the Social Security Act as within the General Welfare Clause -- on two erroneous conceptions: (1) that the States could not care for the people in need (which would not confer authority on Congress), and (2) that "a cyclical depression" gave power to Congress to take control forever.
An admirable view of history
In the Agricultural Adjustment case the Court, speaking through Justice Roberts, said:
"Until recently no suggestion of the existence of any such power in the Federal Government has been advanced. The expressions of the Framers of the Constitution, the decisions of this Court interpreting that Instrument, and the writings of great commentators will be searched in vain for any suggestion that there exists in the Clause [General Welfare] under discussion, or elsewhere in the Constitution, the authority whereby every provision and every fair implication of that Instrument may be subverted, the independence of the individual States obliterated, and the United States converted into a central Government exercising uncontrolled police powers in every State of the Union, superseding all local control or regulation of affairs or concerns of the States.
"Hamilton himself, the leading advocate of broad interpretation of the power to tax and appropriate for the general welfare, never suggested that any power granted by the Constitution could be used for the destruction of local self-government in the States, Story countenances no such doctrine. It never seems to have occurred to them, or to those who have agreed with them, that the general

welfare of the United States (which has aptly been termed "an indestructible Union, composed of indestructible States") might be wrecked by obliterating the constitutional members of the Union."
Justices Stone, Brandeis, and Cardozo dissented.

That decision shows the ground we have since abandoned, with Congress "in a boundless field of power, no longer susceptible of any definition."

Thanks to the great folks over at Barefoot's world website.

Wednesday, August 27, 2014

Federalist Papers No. 48. These Departments Should Not Be So Far Separated as to Have No Constitutional Control Over Each Other

From the New York Packet. Friday, February 1, 1788.

IT WAS shown in the last paper that the political apothegm there examined does not require that the legislative, executive, and judiciary departments should be wholly unconnected with each other. I shall undertake, in the next place, to show that unless these departments be so far connected and blended as to give to each a constitutional control over the others, the degree of separation which the maxim requires, as essential to a free government, can never in practice be duly maintained.
It is agreed on all sides, that the powers properly belonging to one of the departments ought not to be directly and completely administered by either of the other departments. It is equally evident, that none of them ought to possess, directly or indirectly, an overruling influence over the others, in the administration of their respective powers. It will not be denied, that power is of an encroaching nature, and that it ought to be effectually restrained from passing the limits assigned to it. After discriminating, therefore, in theory, the several classes of power, as they may in their nature be legislative, executive, or judiciary, the next and most difficult task is to provide some practical security for each, against the invasion of the others. What this security ought to be, is the great problem to be solved.
Will it be sufficient to mark, with precision, the boundaries of these departments, in the constitution of the government, and to trust to these parchment barriers against the encroaching spirit of power? This is the security which appears to have been principally relied on by the compilers of most of the American constitutions. But experience assures us, that the efficacy of the provision has been greatly overrated; and that some more adequate defense is indispensably necessary for the more feeble, against the more powerful, members of the government. The legislative department is everywhere extending the sphere of its activity, and drawing all power into its impetuous vortex.
The founders of our republics have so much merit for the wisdom which they have displayed, that no task can be less pleasing than that of pointing out the errors into which they have fallen. A respect for truth, however, obliges us to remark, that they seem never for a moment to have turned their eyes from the danger to liberty from the overgrown and all-grasping prerogative of an hereditary magistrate, supported and fortified by an hereditary branch of the legislative authority. They seem never to have recollected the danger from legislative usurpations, which, by assembling all power in the same hands, must lead to the same tyranny as is threatened by executive usurpations.
In a government where numerous and extensive prerogatives are placed in the hands of an hereditary monarch, the executive department is very justly regarded as the source of danger, and watched with all the jealousy which a zeal for liberty ought to inspire. In a democracy, where a multitude of people exercise in person the legislative functions, and are continually exposed, by their incapacity for regular deliberation and concerted measures, to the ambitious intrigues of their executive magistrates, tyranny may well be apprehended, on some favorable emergency, to start up in the same quarter. But in a representative republic, where the executive magistracy is carefully limited; both in the extent and the duration of its power; and where the legislative power is exercised by an assembly, which is inspired, by a supposed influence over the people, with an intrepid confidence in its own strength; which is sufficiently numerous to feel all the passions which actuate a multitude, yet not so numerous as to be incapable of pursuing the objects of its passions, by means which reason prescribes; it is against the enterprising ambition of this department that the people ought to indulge all their jealousy and exhaust all their precautions.
The legislative department derives a superiority in our governments from other circumstances. Its constitutional powers being at once more extensive, and less susceptible of precise limits, it can, with the greater facility, mask, under complicated and indirect measures, the encroachments which it makes on the co-ordinate departments. It is not unfrequently a question of real nicety in legislative bodies, whether the operation of a particular measure will, or will not, extend beyond the legislative sphere. On the other side, the executive power being restrained within a narrower compass, and being more simple in its nature, and the judiciary being described by landmarks still less uncertain, projects of usurpation by either of these departments would immediately betray and defeat themselves. Nor is this all: as the legislative department alone has access to the pockets of the people, and has in some constitutions full discretion, and in all a prevailing influence, over the pecuniary rewards of those who fill the other departments, a dependence is thus created in the latter, which gives still greater facility to encroachments of the former.
I have appealed to our own experience for the truth of what I advance on this subject. Were it necessary to verify this experience by particular proofs, they might be multiplied without end. I might find a witness in every citizen who has shared in, or been attentive to, the course of public administrations. I might collect vouchers in abundance from the records and archives of every State in the Union. But as a more concise, and at the same time equally satisfactory, evidence, I will refer to the example of two States, attested by two unexceptionable authorities.
The first example is that of Virginia, a State which, as we have seen, has expressly declared in its constitution, that the three great departments ought not to be intermixed. The authority in support of it is Mr. Jefferson, who, besides his other advantages for remarking the operation of the government, was himself the chief magistrate of it. In order to convey fully the ideas with which his experience had impressed him on this subject, it will be necessary to quote a passage of some length from his very interesting Notes on the State of Virginia, p. 195. "All the powers of government, legislative, executive, and judiciary, result to the legislative body. The concentrating these in the same hands, is precisely the definition of despotic government. It will be no alleviation, that these powers will be exercised by a plurality of hands, and not by a single one. One hundred and seventy-three despots would surely be as oppressive as one. Let those who doubt it, turn their eyes on the republic of Venice. As little will it avail us, that they are chosen by ourselves. An ELECTIVE DESPOTISM was not the government we fought for; but one which should not only be founded on free principles, but in which the powers of government should be so divided and balanced among several bodies of magistracy, as that no one could transcend their legal limits, without being effectually checked and restrained by the others. For this reason, that convention which passed the ordinance of government, laid its foundation on this basis, that the legislative, executive, and judiciary departments should be separate and distinct, so that no person should exercise the powers of more than one of them at the same time. BUT NO BARRIER WAS PROVIDED BETWEEN THESE SEVERAL POWERS. The judiciary and the executive members were left dependent on the legislative for their subsistence in office, and some of them for their continuance in it. If, therefore, the legislature assumes executive and judiciary powers, no opposition is likely to be made; nor, if made, can be effectual; because in that case they may put their proceedings into the form of acts of Assembly, which will render them obligatory on the other branches. They have accordingly, IN MANY instances, DECIDED RIGHTS which should have been left to JUDICIARY CONTROVERSY, and THE DIRECTION OF THE EXECUTIVE, DURING THE WHOLE TIME OF THEIR SESSION, IS BECOMING HABITUAL AND FAMILIAR."
The other State which I shall take for an example is Pennsylvania; and the other authority, the Council of Censors, which assembled in the years 1783 and 1784. A part of the duty of this body, as marked out by the constitution, was "to inquire whether the constitution had been preserved inviolate in every part; and whether the legislative and executive branches of government had performed their duty as guardians of the people, or assumed to themselves, or exercised, other or greater powers than they are entitled to by the constitution." In the execution of this trust, the council were necessarily led to a comparison of both the legislative and executive proceedings, with the constitutional powers of these departments; and from the facts enumerated, and to the truth of most of which both sides in the council subscribed, it appears that the constitution had been flagrantly violated by the legislature in a variety of important instances.
A great number of laws had been passed, violating, without any apparent necessity, the rule requiring that all bills of a public nature shall be previously printed for the consideration of the people; although this is one of the precautions chiefly relied on by the constitution against improper acts of legislature.
The constitutional trial by jury had been violated, and powers assumed which had not been delegated by the constitution.
Executive powers had been usurped.
The salaries of the judges, which the constitution expressly requires to be fixed, had been occasionally varied; and cases belonging to the judiciary department frequently drawn within legislative cognizance and determination.
Those who wish to see the several particulars falling under each of these heads, may consult the journals of the council, which are in print. Some of them, it will be found, may be imputable to peculiar circumstances connected with the war; but the greater part of them may be considered as the spontaneous shoots of an ill-constituted government.
It appears, also, that the executive department had not been innocent of frequent breaches of the constitution. There are three observations, however, which ought to be made on this head: FIRST, a great proportion of the instances were either immediately produced by the necessities of the war, or recommended by Congress or the commander-in-chief; SECOND, in most of the other instances, they conformed either to the declared or the known sentiments of the legislative department; THIRD, the executive department of Pennsylvania is distinguished from that of the other States by the number of members composing it. In this respect, it has as much affinity to a legislative assembly as to an executive council. And being at once exempt from the restraint of an individual responsibility for the acts of the body, and deriving confidence from mutual example and joint influence, unauthorized measures would, of course, be more freely hazarded, than where the executive department is administered by a single hand, or by a few hands.
The conclusion which I am warranted in drawing from these observations is, that a mere demarcation on parchment of the constitutional limits of the several departments, is not a sufficient guard against those encroachments which lead to a tyrannical concentration of all the powers of government in the same hands.


Learn More About American History:  Visit Jamestown, Yorktown and Colonial Williamsburg Living Museums in Virginia.

Sunday, August 24, 2014

Gloucester, VA Do You Need A License Plate On You Vehicle? Federal Law Says No. States Can Not Override?

Get to know these well!  Posted by;  Freewill.
Marbury V. Madison 5 U.S. 137 says the Constitution of the United States is the Supreme law of the land.

Shapiro V. Thompson 394 U.S. 618 says the right to travel is so basic that it shouldn't even be questioned.

Murdoch V. Pennsylvania 319 U.S. 106 says no state may convert a secure liberty into a privilege and then issue a license and a fee for it.

Shuttlesworth V. Birmingham Alabama 373 U.S. 262 says I can ignore the license and engage in the right with impunity, that means you can’t punish me for it.

Norton V. Shelby County 118 U.S. 425 an unconstitutional act is not law. It confers no rights and poses no duties, affords no protections, and creates no office. It is in legal contemplation as inoperative though it had never been passed.

US V. Bishop 412 U.S. 346 Defines willfulness as an evil motive or intent to avoid a known duty or task under law with immoral certainty. I am using the constitution and supreme court cases so I am not using evil motives or intents.

16th Andrews prudent second section 97 says that it shall be interpreted in my favor because I am the clearly intended and expressly designated beneficiary for the protection of my rights and property.

S.C.R. 1795, Penhallow v. Doane’s Administrators (3 U.S. 54; 1 L.Ed. 57; 3 Dall. 54
Government Is Foreclosed from Parity with Real People
– Supreme Court of the United States 1795
“Inasmuch as every government is an artificial person, an abstraction, and a creature of
the mind only, a government can interface only with other artificial persons. The imaginary,
having neither actuality nor substance, is foreclosed from creating and attaining parity
with the tangible. The legal manifestation of this is that no government, as well as any
law, agency, aspect, court, etc. can concern itself with anything other than corporate,
artificial persons and the contracts between them.”
Supreme Court of the United States 1795
[--Not the "United States Supreme Court" –ed.]

CRUDEN v. NEALE 2N.C. (1796) 2 SE 70 “Every man is independent of all laws, except those prescribed by nature. He is not bound by any institutions formed by his fellowmen without his consent”
See link below for originating site.

Our Notes:  Do we recommend anyone test this?  Not really.  Anyone really want to try the system and at your own expense?  Though we agree with the above, we don't want to see people make numerous mistakes fighting the system.  Leave it to those who can afford it and know what they are doing.  Every type of trick will be used against you that you will not see coming and the court cases will go on forever.  It's better to fight them in the press and expose everything one can and let everyone see what the real deal is.  You have to love the people who are doing this as they are fighting for everyone's freedom and rights here in the US.

Wednesday, August 13, 2014

Official Declaration of Contempt of Constitution by The People of the United States of America

With this Document, Filed, Presented or Posted with any agency, department, representative or body politic of government in any form which such government shall take, shall be construed by force majeure as the same shall be duly gathered by We THE People, and the same shall at any time be required or necessary, to be an official and undeniable Declaration of CONTEMPT OF CONSTITUTION for the People of the United States of America, and sets forth the following information and Declaration in support thereof.
The inherent authority and power to charge one with contempt of court has long been recognized within the courts and the legal structure of the governments of the United States of America. It has been well understood, and is accepted, that such authority and power belongs to common law courts as a result of the nature of what contempt of court is, an inherent authority and power being undeniable and un-separable to the courts because of the nature of what that authority and power is. It is further recognized by We THE People, as claimed by the courts themselves, that contempt of court is the highest authority and power as being true and correct on its face accordingly.
Likewise, it is recognized that such authority and power arose first from an acknowledgement and allowance of the King of England in the early Eighteenth century, or early 1700’s, as revealed by the U.S. Supreme Court case of In Re Green v. U.S., N.Y., 78 S. Ct. 632, 356 U.S. 165, 2L. Ed. 2d 672. This revelation being thus shown to illustrate the fact that the power of contempt of court itself actually comes under the sovereignty of a country just as it did in England at that time centuries ago, proves to the People and establishes by like principle that the power of contempt of court in the United States also belongs under the ultimate Sovereignty of the United States of America the republic thereof, or the People, as was expressly embodied in the Preamble as “We the People.”
Proclaiming and explaining the inherent right of the courts themselves to simply declare the right to contempt of court, it is stated at Corpus Juris Secundun, Volume 17, Section 43, Page 108 that “In order that any human agency may accomplish its purpose, it is necessary that it possess power.” The executive must have power to direct or control his business. The Superintendent must have power to direct his men. In order to accomplish the purposes for which they were created, courts must also possess powers. … these powers are called inherent powers. Among these powers is the power to punish for contempt.”
We THE People of the United States of America, having come together in peaceful assembly to return to Original Jurisdiction and Venue and return the formation of a republic, being noted in the Preamble as “We the People,” likewise have, and hereby reveal and prescribe, an Inherent Authority and Power, and for the same or similar reasons, in their own fashion, do so reason and Declare:
In order that any human body of people forming a constitution representing them directly by prescribed or written agency may accomplish their purposes, in order to keep their constitution secure, safe and sound in its integrity, clean, pure, inviolable (not being violated), it is necessary that that body of people possess all inherent authority and power. The business owner must have authority and power to direct or control his business or punish or fire bad employees who refuse to be directed or controlled as required. The Superintendent must have authority and power to direct his men. In order to accomplish the purpose for which they created a Constitution, a People organized in a republic, or even recognized between themselves as bearing or having a constitution, whether or not written, must also possess Authority and Powers. …these authorities and powers are called Inherent Authorities and Powers. These Authorities and Powers are undeniable, irrevocable, irreversible, indisputable, and unalienable, by any elements of government. Among these authorities and powers is the authority and power to punish for Contempt of Constitution. Contempt of Constitution belongs and is inherent to We THE People alone. No part of authority or power of government may attach it, detract from it, taint it, or approach it.
Furthermore, not only does the Inherent Authority and Power of Contempt of Constitution belong to the People alone, wherefore no body of government may approach it without committing Contempt of Constitution at its highest level, but the principle of Contempt of Constitution was embodied by the Constitution’s Founding Fathers or Framers, at Article I, Section 6, Clause 1, perceived and understood therein as “breach of Peace” being understood so to be, to wit:
Treason and Felony are referred to in Article I, Section 6, Clause 1, but Misdemeanor is not. Thus, mere Misdemeanors, even if seemingly causing a breach of peace by today’s standards, would not be sufficient to prevent a Congressman or Senator from attending Congress in session. Reviewing all forms of Misdemeanors and recognizing that none of them apply to such a breach as described in the Constitution, by process of elimination, the only kind of breach that could be so serious as to be thought by the Founding Fathers as being worthy to stop an attendance of Congress in session was that kind of an offense serious enough to be regarded as equal or greater than the commitment of either a treason of felony.
Whenever any person of We THE People, or the People as a Whole, shall have their rights subsequent to mandated rights and requirements usurped by government, and shall further have as to such abuse, contempt, or usurpation by government their:
Rights that any person or People not be assaulted in their fundamental or constitutional rights or their rights of due process in connection with Life, Liberty and Property are abused or denied (5th Amendment);
Rights to be or feel secure in their houses, not just house, as to all their communications, even with modern technology, the advent of modern technology not amending the Constitution in any part thereof (4th Amendment);
Rights to feel secure while traveling abroad by not being forced under penalty of fine or imprisonment (being in duress, by the conduct of government agents) or violation of other rights to show or produce their papers (4th & 5th Amendment);
Rights of speech, religion, assembly, the press, and petition, not polluted with false concepts of expression leading to gross depravity. Perversion, and leading to all forms of social self-destruction, including children murdering children (1st & 9th Amendments);
Rights to exist peacefully in their homes during times of peace (3rd Amendment);
Rights not to have the State’s militia suppressed, oppressed, or done away with under pretense or disguise of being a national guard, or military assaults committed against private homes for constitutionally violation purposes (Article I, Section 8, Clause 16 & 2nd, 8th and 10th Amendments);
Rights of justice by an impartial jury, under control (trial, try – to control) of a Jury, not under control of a judge, thus representing the People directly (Article III, Section 2, Clause 3 and the 6th Amendment);
Rights to not have judges wearing the (black) robes of England or any other country, to not be required to “all rise” for, to not be required to speak, say or lavish the title of honor where no constitutional law can be required of the People to do so, and to have government of the United States and of the several States to not support, either by law or by practice, a title of such as, but not limited to “esquire,” or any association or organization, foreign or domestic, in support thereof (Article I, Section 9, Clause 8 and Article I, Section 10, Clause 1);
Rights to be fully informed of all material facts that transpire in the courts, not to have judges or attorneys take “silent judicial notice” of elements of proceedings thereby impairing the obligation of contract with the court (Article I, Section 10, Clause 6);
Rights to have the separation of powers between the several States and the United States in cases of criminal offense alleged and recognized (Article III, Section 2, Clause 3);
Rights to have all commerce not crossing or else no longer crossing a State’s borders recognized as intrastate commerce, not interstate commerce, and therefore not under the power and authority of the United States government (Article I, Section 8, Clause 3);
Rights to not have Congress have the right to regulate (make regular or uniform) commerce among the States (or interstate commerce) to be extended to mean “to regulate or control interstate society” where such wording is not plainly stated (not being found in Article I, Section 8, Clause 3);
Rights to assistance of counsel (not necessarily attorney or lawyers), assistance not being forced, controlled or limited by any organization what-so-ever (6th Amendment);
Rights against governmental and other encroachments to have civil matters in cases of determined value tried by jury, also not under the control of a lawyer judge (7th Amendment);
Rights of reasonable bail set, but not by prosecution and trial, and no cruel and unusual punishment (8th Amendment);
Rights to not be forced to use an unlawfull form of money, consideration or value received on export (or income from an accounting standpoint) be taxable by the United States Corporation or Government, weather alleged to be to any foreign country or to any local county or State or nation, or no tax on the export side of interstate commerce in any form (Article I, Section 9, Clause 5);
Rights to the Inherent Right to have the language of the People, in all aspects to which it applies to them, belong to the People alone and under their control, and to not belong to or be controlled by any form of government thereof to any degree whatsoever, and rights to the common law thereunder (9th, 5th and 7th Amendments);
Rights to have all rights, through not specifically numbered (enumerated) within the Constitution but retained without Article V required amendment, retained by the First Generation, or that generation which came under the wording “retained by the people” (9th Amendment);
Rights to have certain powers considered forever and distinctly separate between bodies of government, United States, States, and People (10th Amendment);
Rights to bear arms in order to secure against the loss of the condition of a free state, whether by overt or covert means, being the loss of right to Life, Liberty and Property without due process of the law (2nd Amendment combined with the 5th Amendment);
Rights of all other things as they exist within the main body of the Constitution itself as well as other parts of the Constitution not named;
Then they, the People, are NOT at peace by any of these breaches, either as individuals, or as a People, and Peace clearly has been breached thereby. Article I, Section 6, Clause 1- the minimal embodiment of Contempt of Constitution.
THEREFORE, by these unalienable and mutual understandings beheld now by We THE People, whether or not previously spoken, written, or declared by any knowledge of fact or law, and by mutual covenants of the People, by the People, and between the People unspoken and unwritten yet existent, thus giving their heart-felt, undeniable, and solemn consent to this proceeding, without regard to any expressed numeration of the People so represented hereby but being all inclusive for all of the People United, the People of the United States of America and of the Several States do file and Declare CONTEMPT OF CONSTITUTION to belong as an inherent Power to them, the People, alone, AND THAT by each and every filing and declaration of this Inherent Power throughout the land, this Unalienable Power of Contempt of Constitution shall, for the People alone, GROW EXPOENTIALLY accordingly.
THAT because Contempt by its own nature is a Quasi-Crime, or has many different appearances and aspects, and not a civil offense, and because there are different classes of Contempt, re: Corpus Juris Secundum, Volume 17, Section 43, Page 115, it is necessary to set forth what appears to be the different classes of Contempt of Constitution herein.
The definition(s) of Contempt of Constitution is as follows: Contempt of Constitution is a Sovereign Crime, committed against the sovereign person(s) = People whom such Constitution represents. For the purposes of defining Contempt of Constitution as applicable to the Constitution for the United States of America, the classification of and degrees of types of Contempt of Constitution and like crimes shall be, and hereby are:
General Contempt. Where Contempt has been committed or asserted, but may have been done ignorantly or unknowingly. (Not a defense) This shall include Attempted Contempt.
Malicious Contempt. Where General Contempt has been repeated, so that ignorance of the law is clearly no excuse, or contempt deliberately committed with afore knowledge, or where the results of the contempt is severe against one or more of the person(s) = People victimized by it so that a distinct harm has befallen or inevitably will befall such person(s) = People.
Tyrannical Malicious Contempt. Contempt so strong that it is apparent that the author(s) of tyranny work(s) act of Malicious Contempt, on a similar or dissimilar basis, in an effort, no matter how small, to gain a destructive power over any person=People within the United States of America or any of its territories, or where a corrupt use, or corrupt taking-part in such use, of power, whether or not, by any manner delegated, whereby such power may be used maliciously toward any citizen or any person=People under the protection of the Constitution and Bill of Rights of the United States of America.
Noble Contempt. Noble Contempt of Constitution occurs when a person or business is recognized and=or treated differently, either greater or lesser, under any operation of law (even though a special fee {which shall be unlawfull} might have been paid to a government for such special recognition) that is recognized for other common or ordinary People, as well as for businesses. Noble Contempt also exists wherein private People or businesses are elevated in status above other common People or businesses by either what they are provided as rights to be entitled, above other People of equal merit, to do or by where they are regarded by some sense of fame already in existence as to be given advantage(s) that other ordinary or common People or businesses under the same circumstances would not be provided. Noble Contempt shall also include Noble Contempt by De-nobilization, which is an act of subjecting an individual or even a specific populous to a condition of degradation or reduction in status of importance under the law, whether by statute, code, regulation or common law, in favor of not reducing all People equally, to be affected thereby. This jurisdictional charge and all penalties hereunder, shall apply to both People and non-nationals of the United States of America and of any State. This is an Inherent Power expressed by the Constitution at Article I, Section 9 Clause 8, and Article I, Section 10, Clause 1.
Noble Malicious Contempt. Is the establishment of Noble Contempt where the party or parties involved in such contemptuous activity refuse to vacate such Contempt and such Contempt can be shown to work a hardship or deprivation of common rights upon any other United States of America native born national or native born in a state of the union. This jurisdictional charge and all penalties hereunder, shall apply to both native born People and non-nationals of the United States of America and of any State. This is an Inherent Authority and Power expressed by the Constitution at article I, Section 9, Clause 8 and Article I, Section 10, Clause 1.
Noble Tyrannical Malicious Contempt. Is the establishment of Noble Contempt on a harsh and repetitive basis where the party or parties involved in such contemptuous activity effectuate such Contempt to the degree that it represents a blatant disregard for basic human rights, rights embraced by the Constitution, where gross insensitivity toward the suffering of any United States of America native born Freeman or Free-Woman is the result, and it is reasonably believed that the party or parties knew of the unconstitutionality of their acts but proceeded with obvious Contempt to continue them at any cost, or where there shall be a corrupt use of power in conjunction with such Noble Tyrannical Malicious Contempt, whether or not, by any manner, delegated, that may be used maliciously as toward any native born Freeman or Free-Woman of, or any person=People under the protection of the United States of America nor any of its territories. Furthermore, Noble Tyrannical Malicious Contempt may be recognized as having been committed in any event where the wanton disregard for the rights, safety and secureness of the common native born Freeman or free-Woman, whether or not the same shall be considered sovereign, is enacted, as represented by the scientific formula written as ” ∑(#1) = F∞” (Total Humanity),” putting all or a great portion of humanity at risk of life and=or liberty for the benefit of one, which may be representatively defined in analogical format, put in antiquated-like, but not clearly expressive terms as, “The Sum of Me is Equal To All of Thee.”
IN THE FURTHERANCE of this DECLARATION of CONTEMPT OF CONSTITUTION, where there shall be any attempt to refute, deny, or twist the same so as to be made of alleged non-effect, while holding that the authority and power of contempt of court exists at all, it is further hereby NOTED, UNDERSTOOD, and DECLARED THAT if there be at any time any claim that CONTEMPT OF CONSTITUTION does not exist or that the We THE People have no right thereto, that contempt of court does not exist or that the We THE People have no right thereto, then contempt of court does not exist either, nor contempt of legislature, nor contempt of the executive; the lower cannot supersede the higher, nor set it aside. Therefore, any attempt to declare that Contempt of Constitution does not exist for or belong to We THE People alone in favor of contempt of court or any other authority or power of government, represents a Contempt of Constitution to the Tyrannical Malicious Degree, and is inherently prosecutable there under.
Other forms of Contempt of Constitution may exist as We THE People alone discern or duly proclaim them to be hereafter.
NOTED NOW, and DESCERNED. There is no statute of limitations of Contempt of Constitution, and there can be none, except it be declared by We THE People themselves, which they shall not, except it be by Amendment by Pure Convention, (shall) do.
Contempt of Constitution
Has been formally and officially Declared by this proceeding to the same extent as contempt of court was first declared many ages ago, and has the same lawfull intent and purpose as does contempt of court, the keeping and securing of the Constitution in a safe and sound condition, maintaining its integrity in its rights established solely for the benefit of We THE People of the United States of America.
A tribunal representing a lawfull force recognized by and under the Constitution of the United States of America (Article I, Section 8, Clause 9), also by the power of the tribunals long known and existing under common law, by the power of separate and third party existence as established under the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America, Circa 1778 as amended at 1791, the Tribunal of We THE People undersigned, representing the People in law and in sovereign law, whether by direct representation or by those solemn and sovereign authority and powers in spirit and in fact as embodied and held, being retained by the First Generation as set forth and required by the Ninth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America, now hereby below subscribe their appellations, giving force, authority and power to this proceeding and Declaration, by use by proxy of the appellations of those Founding Fathers whose historical appellations now are entered below upon this Extraordinary Writ of Sovereign Declaration, joined by others thereafter in spirit and=or in fact, this Declaration of Contempt of Constitution is and has been put into Perpetual and Sovereign Effect and Power by the Power and Effect of these Three appellations so autographed, real People=Citizens standing in Symbolic Proxy for the Same, and is therefore,
{Place your statement of facts and=or your issue by verified Affidavit}
It is Ordered, Sentenced and Decreed by the Lawfull Authority and Power by the Political Will of We THE People of the United States of America the date of the Declaration of this Inherent Authority and Power of Contempt of Constitution being Timeless, extending to all times when the offense(s) shall have been committed, by
Autograph: (Seal)
Autograph: (Seal)
Autograph: (Seal)

We have no idea who the original author is but this came off the site linked below and posted by "Freewill".