If you're threatened with a lawsuit and can't afford a lawyer or aren't sure you can trust the lawyer you have, visit Jurisdictionary® to get step-by-step tips and tactics for winning ... with or without a lawyer.
The music which first starts up, Blue Nile by Alice Coltrane, can be stopped by scrolling down the page and pausing the song.
We the People of America,
menaced for the past 100 years by collectivist trends,
must seek Revival of Our Strength by re-Educating Ourselves in the Spiritual Foundations, Principles and Ideals which are the bedrock of our Republic;
within the Principle and Conviction of the Sacredness of every Human Life, and in the understanding of Our Responsibilities in the care and maintenance of those Foundations.
"Government is not reason, it is not eloquence, it is force; like fire, a troublesome servant and a fearful master. Never for a moment should it be left to irresponsible action." ----George Washington, speech of January 7, 1790 in the Boston Independent Chronicle, January 14, 1790
"The establishment of our institutions," wrote President Monroe, "forms the most important epoch that history hath recorded. They extend unexampled felicity to the whole body of our fellow-citizens, and are the admiration of other nations. To preserve and hand them down in their utmost purity to the remotest ages will require the existence and practice of virtues and talents equal to those which were displayed in acquiring them. It is ardently hoped and confidently believed that these will not be wanting."
In this era of world-wide social and political change, it behooves us, as never before, to know the fundamentals of our Constitution which, in times of stress as well as in peace, has provided the American people with a more enduring and practical government, and a greater degree of prosperity that any other people have ever had.
It is well to remember the words of James Madison as we search for Truth in Self-Government and in Our Understanding of this Great Document of Liberty, Freedom, Justice and Prosperity.
"In proportion as the structure of a government gives force to public opinion," wrote Washington in his Farewell Address, "it is essential that public opinion should be enlightened."
"Almost every provision in that instrument [The Constitution]," said a great jurist, " has a history that must be understood before the brief and sententious language employed can be comprehended in the relations its authors intended."
One who reads and studies closely the full explanation in the text will discover that each clause or word in the Constitution was carefully designed to protect the individual -- his life, his liberty and his property. By a few, the erroneous belief has been spread that the Constitution is a barrier in the way of American progress. Actually the Constitution is a coat of mail which man himself has fashioned for his own protection, and which he has changed from time to time that the protection might be the more complete -- protection against the abuse of power by his servants in the legislature or Congress, whom he may dismiss at election time or by impeachment, and against whose invasion of his rights he can appeal to the courts; against his executive officers, whom he may dismiss by impeachment or ballot; against his judges, whom he may remove for lack of "good behavior." His government is not his master, as the king or dictator has always been, but his servant."
Find the full presentation of this excerpt here
Magna Carta (Latin for Great Charter), also called Magna Carta Libertatum or The Great Charter of the Liberties of England, is an Angevin charter originally issued in Latin in the year 1215. It was translated into vernacular French as early as 1219, and reissued later in the 13th century in modified versions. The later versions excluded the most direct challenges to the monarch's authority that had been present in the 1215 charter. The charter first passed into law in 1225; the 1297 version, with the long title (originally in Latin) "The Great Charter of the Liberties of England, and of the Liberties of the Forest," still remains on the statute books of England and Wales.
The 1215 charter required King John of England to proclaim certain liberties and accept that his will was notarbitrary—for example by explicitly accepting that no "freeman" (in the sense of non-serf) could be punished except through the law of the land, a right that still exists.
Magna Carta was the first document forced onto a King of England by a group of his subjects, the feudal barons, in an attempt to limit his powers by law and protect their privileges. It was preceded and directly influenced by theCharter of Liberties in 1100, in which King Henry I had specified particular areas wherein his powers would be limited.
Despite its recognised importance, by the second half of the 19th century nearly all of its clauses had been repealed in their original form. Three clauses currently remain part of the law of England and Wales, however, and it is generally considered part of the uncodified constitution. Lord Denning described it as "the greatest constitutional document of all times – the foundation of the freedom of the individual against the arbitrary authority of the despot". In a 2005 speech, Lord Woolf described it as "first of a series of instruments that now are recognised as having a special constitutional status", the others being the Habeas Corpus Act (1679), the Petition of Right (1628), the Bill of Rights (1689), and the Act of Settlement (1701).
The charter was an important part of the extensive historical process that led to the rule of constitutional law in the English speaking world. Magna Carta was important in the colonization of American colonies as England's legal system was used as a model for many of the colonies as they were developing their own legal systems.
It was Magna Carta, over other early concessions by the monarch, which survived to become a "sacred text". In practice, Magna Carta in the medieval period did not generally limit the power of kings, but by the time of the English Civil War it had become an important symbol for those who wished to show that the King was bound by the law. It influenced the early settlers in New Englandand inspired later constitutional documents, including the United States Constitution.
Selected music for your listening...
Adopted by the thirteen American colonies (New Hampshire, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, and Georgia), on July 4, 1776, the document is regarded as the best-written statements of individual rights in history.
In the Declaration of Independence the colonies not only declared their freedom from Great Britain, but they also addressed the reasons for the proclamation, naming the "causes which impel them to the separation."
The Declaration also borrowed from state constitutions that existed at the time.
The body of the Declaration consists of twenty-eight charges against the king, justifying the break with Britain. All but four are from state constitutions.
Jefferson, in Philadelphia working on the Declaration of Independence, and therefore precluded from participating in the fifth Virginia Convention, which was convened to work on a "Declaration of Rights" and a "Form of Government," sketched an outline of a Constitution and sent it to the president of the convention. Though it arrived too late to be considered, they amended the finished constitution with his preamble and list of grievances, which accordingly, bear a striking similarity to those in the Declaration of Independence.
Jefferson no doubt drew from George Mason's Declaration of Rights (published on June 6, 1776).
The first paragraph states, "All men are born equally free and independent and have certain inherent natural Rights; among which are the Enjoyment of Life and Liberty, with the Means of Acquiring and possessing property, and pursuing and obtaining Happiness and Safety."
Mason also argued that when any government is found unworthy of the trust placed in it, a majority of the community "hath an indubitable, inalienable, and indefensible Right to Reform, alter, or abolish it."
William Blackstone's Commentaries on the Laws of England affirmed that a King could do no wrong. "The king," he wrote, "is not only incapable of doing wrong, but even of thinking wrong: in him there is no folly or weakness." A law, however, could be illogical and therefore irrational and open to criticism. Jefferson said that Blackstone and David Hume's History of England "have done more towards the suppression of the liberties of man, than all the millions of men in arms of Bonaparte," because both books glorified the systems Jefferson had devoted his life to fighting. Yet on two occasions Jefferson listed the Commentaries as required reading for law students.
Thomas Paine's Common Sense provided reasons for advocating an immediate declaration of independence
The most frequently quoted passage reads:
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, That whenever any Form ofGovernment becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of thePeople to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness."
The Articles of Confederation, formally the Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union, was an agreement among the 13 founding states that established the United States of America as a confederation of sovereign states and served as its first constitution. Its drafting by theContinental Congress began in mid 1776, and an approved version was sent to the states for ratification in late 1777.
The formal ratification by all 13 states was completed in early 1781. Even if not yet ratified, the Articles provided domestic and international legitimacy for the Continental Congress to direct the American Revolutionary War, conduct diplomacy with Europe and deal with territorial issues and Indian relations. Nevertheless, the weak government created by the Articles became a matter of concern for key nationalists. On March 4, 1789, the Articles were replaced with the U.S. Constitution.
The new Constitution provided for a much stronger national government with a chief executive (the president), courts, and taxing powers.
The political push to increase cooperation among the then-loyal colonies began with the Albany Congress in 1754 and Benjamin Franklin's proposed intercolonial collaboration to help solve mutual local problems themselves; the Articles of Confederation would bear some resemblance to it.
Over the next two decades, some of the basic concepts it addressed would strengthen and others would weaken, particularly the degree of deserved loyalty to the crown. With civil disobedience resulting in coercive and intolerable acts, and armed conflict resulting in dissidents being proclaimed rebels and outside the King's protection, any loyalty remaining shifted toward independence and how to achieve it. In 1775, with events outpacing communications, the Second Continental Congress began acting as the provisional government to run the American Revolutionary War and gain the colonies their collective independence.
It was an era of constitution writing — most states were busy at the task — and leaders felt the new nation must have a written constitution, even though other nations did not. During the war, Congress exercised an unprecedented level of political, diplomatic, military and economic authority. It adopted trade restrictions, established and maintained an army, issued fiat money, created a military code and negotiated with foreign governments.
To transform themselves from outlaws into a legitimate nation,
the colonists needed international recognition for their cause and foreign allies to support it.
In early 1776, Thomas Paine argued in the closing pages of the first edition of Common Sense that the “custom of nations” demanded a formal declaration of American independence if any European power were to mediate a peace between the Americans and Great Britain. The monarchies of France and Spain in particular could not be expected to aid those they considered rebels against another legitimate monarch. Foreign courts needed to have American grievances laid before them persuasively in a “manifesto” which could also reassure them that the Americans would be reliable trading partners. Without such a declaration, Paine concluded, “[t]he custom of all courts is against us, and will be so, until, by an independence, we take rank with other nations.”
Beyond improving their existing association, the records of the Second Continental Congress show that the need for a declaration of independence was intimately linked with the demands of international relations. On June 7, 1776, Richard Henry Lee tabled a resolution before the Continental Congress declaring the colonies independent; at the same time he also urged Congress to resolve “to take the most effectual measures for forming foreign Alliances” and to prepare a plan of confederation for the newly-independent states.
Congress then created three overlapping committees to draft the Declaration, a Model Treaty, and the Articles of Confederation. The Declaration announced the states' entry into the international system; the model treaty was designed to establish amity and commerce with other states; and the Articles of Confederation, which established “a firm league” among the thirteen free and independent states, constituted an international agreement to set up central institutions for the conduct of vital domestic and foreign affairs.
The Federalist Papers are a series of 85 articles or essays promoting the ratification of the United States Constitutionwritten by Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, and John Jay. Seventy-seven of the essays were published serially in The Independent Journal and The New York Packet between October 1787 and August 1788. A compilation of these and eight others, called The Federalist; or, The New Constitution, was published in two volumes in 1788 by J. and A. McLean.The series' correct title is The Federalist; the title The Federalist Papers did not emerge until the twentieth century.
The authors of The Federalist Papers wanted to influence the vote in favor of ratifying the Constitution.
However, the authors of the Federalist papers also had a greater plan in mind. According to Federalist 1:
It has been frequently remarked, that it seems to have been reserved to the people of this country, by their conduct and example, to decide the important question, whether societies of men are really capable or not, of establishing good government from reflection and choice, or whether they are forever destined to depend, for their political constitutions, on accident and force.
According to historian Richard B. Morris, they are an "incomparable exposition of the Constitution, a classic in political science unsurpassed in both breadth and depth by the product of any later American writer."
At the time of publication, the authorship of the articles was a closely guarded secret, though astute observers guessed thatAlexander Hamilton, James Madison, and John Jay were the likely authors. Following Hamilton's death in 1804, a list that he drew up became public; it claimed fully two-thirds of the essays for Hamilton, including some that seemed more likely the work of Madison (Nos. 49-58, 62, and 63).
The scholarly detective work of Douglass Adair in 1944 postulated the following assignments of authorship, corroborated in 1964 by a computer analysis of the text:
The authors used the pseudonym "Publius", in honor of Roman consul Publius Valerius Publicola. While some historians credit Thomas Jefferson's influence, it is Madison who often now receives greater foundational credit as the father of the Constitution despite his repeated rejection of the honor during his lifetime.Madison became a leading member of the U.S. House of Representatives from Virginia (1789–1797), Secretary of State (1801–1809), and ultimately the fourthPresident of the United States. Hamilton, who had been a leading advocate of national constitutional reform throughout the 1780s and represented New York at theConstitutional Convention, in 1789 became the first Secretary of the Treasury, a post he held until his resignation in 1795. John Jay, who had been secretary for foreign affairs under the Articles of Confederation from 1784 through their expiration in 1789, became the first Chief Justice of the United States in 1789, stepping down in 1795 to accept election as governor of New York, a post he held for two terms, retiring in 1801.
The remainder of this article found at WikiPedia
The Anti-Federalist Papers,
are a collection of articles, written in opposition to the ratification of the 1787 United States Constitution. Unlike the Federalist Papers written in support of the Constitution, the authors of these articles, mostly operating under pen names, were not engaged in a strictly organized project. Thus, unlike the Federalist Papers, it is a matter of opinion what writings specifically are included and in what order they are best presented. One notable presentation is that by Morton Borden, who collected 85 of the most significant papers and arranged them in an order closely resembling that of the 85 Federalist Papers, e.g. #10 in Borden's arrangement argues against Federalist No. 10. The most frequently cited modern collection, The Complete Anti-Federalist, was produced by Herbert Storing and, at seven volumes, is considered the authoritative compendium on the publications.
Major Anti-Federalist authors included Cato (likely George Clinton), Brutus (likely Robert Yates), Centinel (Samuel Bryan), and the Federal Farmer (either Melancton Smith, Richard Henry Lee, or Mercy Otis Warren). Speeches by Patrick Henry and Smith are often included as well.
One of the major points of the articles was the danger the new Constitution would bring without a statement of individual rights. Some of the Anti-Federalist concerns were addressed in the Bill of Rights, which was added later.
"The question whether an act repugnant to the constitution can become the law of the land is a question deeply interesting to the United States; but, happily, not of an intricacy proportioned to its interest. It seems only necessary to recognize certain principles, supposed to have been long and well established, to decide it.
"That the people have an original right to establish for their future government such principles as, in their opinion, shall most conduce to their own happiness, is the basis on which the whole American fabric has been erected....
"This original and supreme will organizes the government, and assigns to different departments their respective powers. It may either stop here, or establish certain limits not to be transcended by those departments.
"The government of the United States is of the latter description. The powers of the legislature are defined and limited; and that those limits may not be mistaken, or forgotten, the constitution is written. To what purpose are powers limited, and to what purpose is that limitation committed to writing, if these limits may, at any time, be passed by those intended to be restrained?
"If an act of the legislature, repugnant to the constitution, is void, does it, notwithstanding its invalidity, bind the courts, and oblige them to give it effect? Or, in other words, though it be not law, does it constitute a rule as operative as if it was a law? This would be to overthrow in fact what was established in theory; and would seem, at first view, an absurdity too gross to be insisted on." -- Chief Justice Marshall.
Whether the framers of the Constitution intended that the Supreme Court should in proper cases hold unconstitutional acts of Congress and acts of the legislatures of the States is answered Yes. (See p. 179) The subject was fully discussed not only in the Constitutional Convention, but also in the State ratifying conventions and in print. Oliver Ellsworth, in the Connecticut Convention, stated clearly the practice then intended precisely as it exists in the courts today:
"This Constitution defines the extent of the powers of the general government. If the general legislature [Congress should at any time overleap their limits the judicial department is a constitutional check. If the United States go beyond their powers, if they make a law which the Constitution does not authorize, it is void; and the judicial power, the National judges, who, to secure their impartiality, are to be made independent, will declare it to be void. On the other hand, if the States go beyond their limits, if they make a law which is a usurpation upon the Federal [National] government the law is void; and upright, independent judges will declare it to be so."
So there has been no usurpation of this power.....
read the full thesis here
The U.S. Constitution was established to protect the rights of the people. It does not grant us rights, it protects our natural rights. This is important, because those selected to hold office are sworn to uphold the U.S. Constitution, thereby acknowledging that whatever their office, the U.S. Constitution’s law is fundamental and no other bill or ruling can alter this fact.
The Framers created a constitutional republic. They took great pains not to create a democracy, which they feared. Checks and balances are intended to slow the process of creating legislation and moderate the extreme views of factions which otherwise impose on minority rights instead of creating law for the common welfare of society.
To help prevent those selected to office from abusing the power of their office and imposing tyrannical rule, authority was divided between the federal and state governments, and within each of these governments, between the branches. A bicameral legislature was created, further separating the representatives of the people from those representing the states.
James Madison wrote,
“In a society under the forms of which the stronger faction can readily unite and oppress the weaker, anarchy may as truly be said to reign as in a state of nature, where the weaker individual is not secured against the violence of the stronger; and as, in the latter state, even the stronger individuals are prompted, by the uncertainty of their condition, to submit to a government which may protect the weak as well as themselves; so, in the former state, will the more powerful factions or parties be gradnally [sic] induced, by a like motive, to wish for a government which will protect all parties, the weaker as well as the more powerful.”
Our Constitution was designed to protect majority and minority rights by preventing any one faction from having too much power and undermining the people’s sovereignty. This is achieved by holding citizen and representative to the same law.
When the Framers deliberated over the qualifications of the president, they made natural born citizenship a qualification to protect against foreign influences and “the electoral college mechanism was a compromise primarily about how to allocate the votes for president, rather than the source of legitimacy of those votes… popular election was unacceptable to the small (less populous) states and states where slavery was practiced. The electoral college mechanism met the separation of powers concerns of Madison and at the same time solved the representation problem of the small states and the south.” (The Electoral College and the Framers’ Distrust of Democracy)
Regrettably, there are serious encroachments on the checks and balances meant to protect our states rights, such as the 17th Amendment, which changed the election of our senators by their state legislatures to their election by the popular vote. Currently, there is a movement which would abolish the Electoral College and replace it with direct election of the president, based on popular vote. This would eliminate the current power of the 50 states to elect our president and have the effect of eliminating a national constituency.
This synopsis on the constitution was found at BasicsProject
Alexander Hamilton is addressing miscellaneous objections to the Constitution. He reminds those who criticize it for lacking a Bill of Rights that many of the state constitutions also do not have one. However, the body of the constitution contains various provisions in favor of particular privileges and rights including the power to impeach, writ of habeas corpus, the allowance for no bill of attainder or ex post facto law, no granting of title of nobility, trial shall be by jury in the state the crime was committed within, and punishment for treason will not extend to family members of the person convicted of that crime.
He explains that common and statute laws can be altered or repealed, as well as created, because they are not sanctioned by the constitution.
He chastises his critics about wanting a Bill of Rights because it is not applicable to the constitution. He feels that a Bill of Rights is only necessary between a Monarch and his/her subjects since the authority to rule doesn’t come from the people in a situation like that. The Constitution is executed by the representatives of the people.
He goes so far as to say that a Bill of Rights would be dangerous because “they would contain various exceptions to powers which are not granted; and, on this very account, would afford a colorable pretext to claim more than were granted.” Hamilton uses freedom of the press as an example of how a Bill of Rights might be misused because it implies “that a power to prescribe proper regulations concerning it was intended to be vested in the national government.” He believes that the federal and state constitutions are a Bill of Rights.
Many objectors feared that the distance to the nation’s capital would make it difficult to monitor the conduct of the representatives. He allays these fears by reminding them that, “The executive and legislative bodies of each state will be so many sentinels over the persons employed in every department of the national administration (and)…citizens who inhabit the country at and near the seat of government will, in all questions that affect the general liberty and prosperity, have the same interest with those who are at a distance, and that they will stand ready to sound the alarm when necessary.”
He also makes it clear that by changing the form of their civil government, there will be no allowance for the states to relinquish their debts to the federal government.
Finally, with regard to the cost of the new form of government, he actually runs through each department and shows where the expenses are derived, and points out how in many cases it is no more money than is currently costing the people, and that in many instances it will save the states money. But in any case, any additional cost, for instance to pay the tenured judges, is worth the cost of keeping the union running efficiently. He concludes that, “…the sources of additional expense from the establishment of the proposed constitution are much fewer than may have been imagined; that they are counterbalanced by considerable objects of saving; and that while its questionable on which side the scale will preponderate it is certain that a government less expensive would be incompetent to the purposes of the Union."
The Bill of Rights was ratified together with the Constitution in 1791. It is meant to limit the power of the federal government so to protect the civil liberties and rights of individuals. These rights include the freedom of speech, protection against unwarranted searches and seizures, and provision of due process and other rights for people accused of criminal behavior. It became, in effect, the check and balance for the people, rather than having this come from the authority for the Constitution being derived from the people.
Nancy Salvato, Director of Constitutional Studies
read the remainder of this article at BasicsProject
Most contemporary political debate can be traced back to the two philosophies. When focusing on each of the candidates talking points in the race for the presidency, it might be helpful to think of their arguments framed in that great creation of our founding fathers, the Constitution.
Classical republicanism refers to the idea that individuals should put the needs of the community before self-interest. In natural rights philosophy (modern liberalism), the purpose of government is to protect individual rights. The ideal government achieves and maintains a balance between the two ideas. The key word here is balance, there was no either/or intended when the framers wrote the United States Constitution. It was suggested by one of the speakers that we need to cultivate the capacity to hold contradictory ideas simultaneously and that we cannot become terrorized by dichotomies.
We were reminded that the constitution is a brief document and that aside from the enumerated responsibilities of the federal government, it is essentially a negative rights document…what isn’t specifically listed under the domain of the Executive, Legislative, or Judicial branches of government was left to the states. The Bill of Rights contains the only positive rights listed in the document. The problem with positive rights is that you might forget to list a right, which some of the founders feared could be taken to mean that the right was not given. Our state constitutions are much longer and difficult to navigate because of all the positive rights written into them. Does an amendment about marriage belong in the U.S. Constitution?
The idea that if any revolution is to succeed, it needs people who are unhappy with the status quo and willing to fight for a new form of government. If most of the colonists had nothing to lose, why would they want to revolt from England? The revolution had to be framed in a way that commoners had a personal stake in the outcome, therefore the word property was deliberately omitted and happiness was inserted into the line, “…life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.” At the time of the revolution, the people with the most to lose from the King’s policy of taxation were those who owned land and businesses. But the U.S. Constitution was not set up to protect our happiness; it was set up to protect our property. Are we no longer self governing, sovereign nation, but instead subject to the members of a global governing body?
Our country was founded as a republic, not a democracy but its interesting to note we have a preamble that says, “We the people” instead of “We the states”. This is because the people are citizens of their states and their country. It is difficult for other countries to understand our form of government. To us, it’s natural because we have grown up with it. Can our country help other nations set up governments which get their sovereignty from the people and which protect the basic freedoms of life, liberty, and happiness (property)?
Nancy Salvato, Director of Constitutional Studies
find the rest of this article at BasicsProject
Initial review of the District of Columbia Organic Act of 1871 seems like it only sets up a local government (like Chicago or Seattle);
how do you get that they formed a private corporation?
If you take the Act out of its historical context and, from the present looking to the past, imagine who the parties involved are, we might agree. However, we cannot do that; to best understand what really happened we follow our:
Standard for Review
Rule 1: To understand any relationship you must:
1. First understand who the parties are;
a. Always know yourself first
b. Discover the true nature of all other parties second
2. Then you must understand the environmental nature of the relationship; and,
3. Only then do the actual terms of the relationship begin to have meaning and bearing on the relationship.
Rule 2: To have any hope of understanding any particular situation in any relationship you must have first applied Rule 1, only then do the details of the situation in question have any meaning; therefore, review such details in accord with Rule 1 as well.
to understand the parties involved in the District of Columbia Organic Act of 1871, we must first understand who the parties are involved in the relationship described by the Act.
We are not here going to delve into the Act in its entirety, suffice it to say, looking over the situation we find the Act is one made by the original jurisdiction Congress, set by the Constitution for the United States of America. The District of Columbia Organic Act of 1871 describes its venue as: "all that part of the territory of the United States included within the limits of the District of Columbia".
The District of Columbia was originally provided for in the Constitution for the United States of America (9-17-1787) at Article 1 Section 8, specifically in the last two clauses. Then, on July 16, 1790, in accord with the provisions of those clauses, the Territory was formed in the District of Columbia Act, wherein the "ten mile square" territory was permanently created and made the permanent location of the country's government, that is to say, the "territory" includes the actual government. Under the Act Congress also made the President the civic leader of the local government in all matters in said Territory. Then on February 27, 1801, under the second District of Columbia Act, two counties were formed and their respective officers and district judges were appointed.
Further, the established town governments of Alexandria, Georgetown and Washington were recognized as constituted and placed under the laws of the District, its judges, etc. The United States Supreme Court has repeatedly called this act the "District of Columbia Organization Act" or the "Charter Act of the District of Columbia" and recognized it as the incorporation of the "municipality" known as the "District of Columbia". Then on March 3, 1801 a Supplementary Act to that last Act, noted here, added the authority that the Marshals appointed by the respective District Court Judges collectively form a County Commission with the authority to appoint all officers as may be needed in similarity to the respective State officials in the states whence the counties Washington and Alexandria came, those being Maryland and Virginia, respectively.
According to the United States Supreme Court those charter acts (first acts) were the official incorporation of the formal government of the District of Columbia as chartered by Congress in accord with the Constitution's provision. Again, the Supreme Court called that body of government "a corporation", with the right to sue and be sued. Since 1801 The District of Columbia has been consistently recognized as a "municipal corporation" with its own government.
That all that part of the territory of the United States included within the limits of the District of Columbia be, and the same is hereby, created into a government by the name of the District of Columbia, by which name it is hereby constituted a body corporate for municipal purposes ... and exercise all other powers of a municipal corporation.
Knowing the government of the District of Columbia was already "created into a government" and so formed into a municipal incorporation in 1801 under the District of Columbia Acts, we wonder, even with Congress' constitutional authority to pass any law within the ten mile square of the District, how do you create, or incorporate, for the first time a municipal government that has already been in existence as a municipal corporation for over 70 years? The obvious answer is, "It's impossible!" There is no way to pass an "Organic Act" when the Charter Act is already in place, because the two words (organic and charter) have the same meaning—The First Act. Even Congress cannot change history; though historians can make it appear to change by rewriting it for those unwilling to study the past from the records. The records speak for themselves only if we study them.
When you consider the historical facts, the only meaning left for the terms given in the opening paragraph of the District of Columbia Organic Act of 1871 (and that which follows) is, the municipal corporation that was created is a private corporation owned by the actual government. And the only government created in that Act was the same government any private corporation has within the operation of its own corporate construct. Thus, we call it Corp. U.S. We also note Congress reserved the right, granted them in the Constitution, to complete dictatorial authority over their Corp. U.S. construct, without regard for its internal operations or officers. Thus, Congress can use it within the ten mile square as they see fit.
Our man on the Land Bill or Bill for short http://republicforarizona.org talks about the relationships between the the United States and the Americans that live on the land as well. it is evident the United States is a foreign corporation operating as a government and the Secretary of State is the bridge between them.
Under the Constitution, the President of the United States determines U.S. foreign policy.The Secretary of State, appointed by the President with the advice and consent of the Senate, is the President's chief foreign affairs adviser.
Created in 1789 by the Congress as the successor to the Department of Foreign Affairs, the Department of State is the senior executive Department of the U.S. Government. The Secretary of State's duties relating to foreign affairs have not changed significantly since then, but they have become far more complex as international commitments multiplied. These duties-the activities and responsibilities of the State Department-include the following:
• Serves as the President's principal adviser on U.S. foreign policy;
• Conducts negotiations relating to U.S. foreign affairs;
• Grants and issues passports to American citizens and exequaturs to foreign consuls in the United States;
• Advises the President on the appointment of U.S. ambassadors, ministers, consuls, and other diplomatic representatives;
• Advises the President regarding the acceptance, recall, and dismissal of the representatives of foreign governments;
• Personally participates in or directs U.S. representatives to international conferences, organizations, and agencies;
• Negotiates, interprets, and terminates treaties and agreements;
• Ensures the protection of the U.S. Government to American citizens, property, and interests in foreign countries;
• Supervises the administration of U.S. immigration laws abroad;
• Provides information to American citizens regarding the political, economic, social, cultural, and humanitarian conditions in foreign countries;
• Informs the Congress and American citizens on the conduct of U.S. foreign relations;
• Promotes beneficial economic intercourse between the United States and other countries;
• Administers the Department of State;
• Supervises the Foreign Service of the United States.
In addition, the Secretary of State retains domestic responsibilities that Congress entrusted to the State Department in 1789. These include the custody of the Great Seal of the United States, the preparation of certain presidential proclamations, the publication of treaties and international acts as well as the official record of the foreign relations of the United States, and the custody of certain original treaties and international agreements. The Secretary also serves as the channel of communication between the Federal Government and the States on the extradition of fugitives to or from foreign countries
Our Man on the Land Bill also known as Bill for short, is at it again.http://republicforarizona.org In today's presentation [which is for information and entertainment purposes only] we talking about the executor pronounced ex'-cec-ut-or like the guy who chops off the tyrants heads after the revolution. Or the upstart who challenges the will of the state when the revolution doesn't go as planned. Like I said entertainment purposes only!
There was a death that occurred on the date you were berth. You know him well, he is called STRAWMAN, you know the guy who has the same name as yours only his name is in ALL CAPS. There was a executor that was created...that's YOU. His job is to handle the affairs of the dead guy, the STRAWMAN.
Unfortunately for those who are not Secured Party Creditors have given power of attorney to the government in the form of drivers license, marriage certificate and social security card, so the government is the executor. Now you know why you're not winning in the probate courts. Hint: they are all probate courts!
The executor is the person which we know is a corporation or corpse which is dead. The executor has the following duties:
There is an honor and a burden to serve as someone's executor. An executor is entrusted (trust)with responsibility for winding up someone's earthly affairs -- a big or little task, depending on the situation. Essentially, an executor is charged, (has a blue pen ready to effect payment) with protecting a deceased person's property (the corps, the legal entity, or Strawman) until all debts and taxes have been paid, ( on the public and private side), and seeing that what's left is transferred to the people who are entitled to it, (possibly the beneficiary , Realman,).
The law does not require an executor (also called a personal representative) to be a legal or financial expert, but it does require the highest degree of honesty, impartiality, and diligence. This is called a "fiduciary duty" -- the duty to act with scrupulous good faith and honesty on behalf of someone else.
Executors have a number of duties, depending on the complexity of the deceased person's financial and family circumstances. Typically, an executor mustFind the deceased person's assets and manage them until they are distributed to inheritors.(I found the se estque trust and registered it internationally, with a BC bond and indemnified all parties with a IB bond, insurance policy, and opened up a checking account to offset all debts or bills the dead corps has aquired or will aquire in future indebtedness) This may involve deciding whether to sell real estate or securities owned by the deceased person,(as long as it is debt.)
Decide whether or not probate court proceedings are needed. Most jointly owned assets pass to the surviving owner, without probate. And if the deceased person's property is worth less than a certain amount (how much depends on state law), it may be able to go through a streamlined probate process. (To learn more about probate, see Probate FAQ.)
Figure out who inherits property. If the deceased person left a will, the executor will read it to determine who gets what. If there's no will, the person in charge (sometimes called the administrator) will have to look at state law (called "intestate succession" statutes) Intestate means "without a testament," to find out who the deceased person's heirs are.
File the will (if any) in the local probate court. Generally, this step is required by law, even if no probate proceeding will be necessary.
Handle day-to-day details. This may include terminating leases and credit cards, and notifying banks and government agencies -- such as the Social Security Administration, the post office, Medicare, and the Department of Veterans Affairs -- of the death.!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!wow!!!
Set up an estate bank account. This account will hold money that is owed to the deceased person -- for example, paychecks or stock dividends.
Use estate funds to pay continuing expenses. The executor may need to pay, for example, utility bills, mortgage payments, and homeowner's insurance premiums.!!oh wow!!!
Pay debts. If there is a probate proceeding, the executor must officially notify creditors of it, following the procedure set out by state law.(notice needs to be received by the court on the private side as not to bring public attention to the executor.)
Pay taxes. A final income tax return must be filed, covering the period from the beginning of the tax year to the date of death. State and federal estate tax returns are required only for large estates.( mine is pretty large I hope 80 M will take care of it.)
Supervise the distribution of the deceased person's property. The property will go to the people or organizations named in the will or those entitled to inherit under state law.( Me the beneficiary)