15 votes

What has really happened to ‘State Rights’...?

State Rights has been at the forefront of the liberty movement for some time now. With Ron Paul’s campaign in 2007/2008 a great awakening has taken place in the hearts and the minds of many of the people. A waking up, if you will, to the blatant fact of lawlessness executed by our governments, and an era of the Rule of Men and their monetary system of slavery, here in America – all the way up and all the way down. I am here to do my very best to explain and inform you of what has happened, a point Dr. Paul has touched upon, but one which the people (those who actually care about freedom, liberty, and unalienable rights) have not grasped; the starting point of the overthrow of law (usurpation), the destruction of State rights, and the downward spiral of our great American institutions.

Most of us who support the rule of law (the fundamental principles of constitutional republics) have come to the realization that we are not being told the whole story, we were and are being taught half truths, and brazen lies about what our governments have and have not done. We have been spoon-fed revisionist history, told to place our hope in men once every two years to restore to us what has been lost, and to ignore the evils of the past because the ‘ends justify the means’. The truth is, my country men, comfort and security has reigned supreme in our communities for generations now; we have lost our way and have come to believe that a little freedom is equal to the “Freedom” our forefathers intended for us. If you are reading this you are the exception, truth is what matters most, and the consequences in pursuit of truth are worth the sacrifice; “..our lives, our fortunes, and our sacred honor.”

What has inspired me to write this, aside from the obvious passion that “eternal vigilance” requires of us, is the recent ‘hue and cry’ coming from former Bush administration speechwriter Michael Gerson: that Ron Paul is on a “quest to undo the Party of Lincoln”. This is where the answer to our question begins, but it is a trick question, because without coming to terms with the answer we will never restore to ourselves and our posterity what has been lost.

The trend we see today with the Obama administration is nothing new and, in fact, was initiated by the so-called ‘savior of the Union and great emancipator’. Lincoln and the 37th Congress waged an unjust war for the purpose of consolidating power in Washington City, this is the bottom line. I am aware of the rhetoric surrounding the ‘necessity’ of the war, but the truth is, if we are reasonable and logical; if we truly take the time to look at the history of the time and what followed, the picture becomes quite clear – the ‘American Civil War’ was a revolution waged by the ‘Radical Republicans’, one which was intended to overthrow the founding principles of our National constitution and the States which granted it power.

Lincoln’s war of genocide was the first step in setting the stage for all that we see that is going wrong in our nation today. The next great breach of trust and power grab by our National government occurred in 1867 and 1868 with the 39th Congress – the Reconstruction Acts. These Acts forced the ratification of the 14th Amendment and forced the annulment of lawful state governments. Now, many will say that this amendment was for the purpose of ‘giving civil rights’ to the recently freed slaves, however I would beg to differ – What then was the purpose of the ‘Civil Rights’ movement in the 1960’s? A closer inspection of the intent of the 14th Article of Amendment is also necessary to draw a clearer picture. The following is an excerpt from one of the ‘fathers’ of Congressional Reconstruction and the 14th Amendment, and is quite clear, and telling, as to the true purpose:

“...All were ordained in the spirit of liberty, all prohibited the existence of any form of slavery, and all heartily recognized the supreme sovereignty of the National Government as having been indisputably established by the overthrow of the Rebellion which was undertaken to confirm the adverse theory of State-rights...

...As the vicious theory of State-rights, had been constantly at enmity with the true spirit of Nationality, the Organic Law of the Republic should be so amended that no standing-room for the heresy would be left....

...Its opening section settled all conflicts and contradictions on this question by a comprehensive declaration which defined National citizenship and gave to it precedence of the citizenship of a State. "All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof are citizens of the United States and of the States wherein they reside." These pregnant words distinctly reversed the origin and character of American citizenship. Instead of a man being a citizen of the United States because he was a citizen of one of the States, he was now made a citizen of any State in which he might choose to reside, because he was antecedently a citizen of the United States.
The consequences that flowed from this radical change in the basis of citizenship were numerous and weighty...

...The first section of the Constitutional amendment which includes these invaluable provisions is in fact a new charter of liberty to the citizens of the United States; is the utter destruction of the pestilent heresy of State-rights, which constantly menaced the prosperity and even the existence of the Republic; and is the formal bestowment of Nationality upon the wise Federal system which was the outgrowth of our successful Revolution against Great Britain...” James G. Blaine, Twenty Years of Congress 1861 - 1881
Vol. 2, pp. 300, 303, 312-313 (The Henry Bill Publishing Company 1886)

My countrymen and women, this is but the tip of the iceberg of what happened to State rights. For 151 years our system of government has been trying to rationalize and incorporate lawlessness into our system of government – “How can we make it appear that the Constitution for the United States of America is unfettered; that we have not set up a legislative oligarchy?”

I realize that this issue is not a simple one, the legal implication are “numerous and weighty”, but how can we expect to repair or remodel our house when we are unwilling to address the foundational problems which have persisted? Are we a nation of laws, or a nation of men? Do we truly believe in the fundamental principles of law embraced by our founding fathers or are the political whims and passions of the day superior to Natural Law? This issue is not unknown to the legal profession; it has just been considered taboo – From the Supreme Court of Utah:

“… In regard to the Fourteenth Amendment, which the present Supreme Court of the United States has by decision chosen as the basis for invading the rights and prerogatives of the sovereign states, it is appropriate to look at the means and methods by which that amendment was foisted upon the Nation in times of emotional stress…
...We have spoken in the hope that the Supreme Court of the United States may retreat from some of its recent decisions affecting the rights of a sovereign state to determine for itself what is proper procedure in its own courts as it affects its own citizens. However, we realize that because of that Court's superior power, we must pay homage to it even though we disagree with it; and so we now discuss the merits of this case just the same as though the sword of Damocles did not hang over our heads.” Dyett v. Turner, 20 Utah 2d 403(1968)

This issue can no longer be ignored; it is ripping our nation apart. The ‘Civil War’ was a crime, Lincoln a tyrant and usurper, Reconstruction unconstitutional, and the 14th Amendment a nullity, void, in law. Constitutionally-minded people, such as Ron and Rand Paul are not ‘going to save us’; they are there to walk shoulder-to-shoulder with us, to give us aid and support in restoring our republics. Are you willing to educate yourselves upon this truth we must face? Are you willing to face the broken heart of our nation, and then do what must be done?

I will look forward to the discussion.

In liberty,
Isaac Hutchison Birch

My Blog



Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

State Powers?

State, body politic, people are all one in the same.

STATE, government. This word is used in various senses. In its most enlarged sense, it signifies a self-sufficient body of persons united together in one community for the defence of their rights, and to do right and justice to foreigners. In this sense, the state means the whole people united into one body politic; (q. v.) and the state, and the people of the state, are equivalent expressions. 1 Pet. Cond. Rep. 37 to 39; 3 Dall. 93; 2 Dall. 425; 2 Wilson's Lect. 120; Dane's Appx. §50, p. 63 1 Story, Const. §361. In a more limited sense, the word `state' expresses merely the positive or actual organization of the legislative, or judicial powers; thus the actual government of the state is designated by the name of the state; hence the expression, the state has passed such a law, or prohibited such an act.

Bouvier's Law Dictionary, 1856 Ed.

To address this very

To address this very important issue, We the People must first address and accept the glaringly obvious but painful truth that for many many moons, our nation has not been the Constitutional Republic from which it came. Instead, our nation, through the divisiveness of politicians, the Courts, and in more recent years, lobbyist & the "mega-corporations", has instituted a sort-of corporate oligarchy if you will. The first step is to centralize, or federalize, the People in their own minds [the 14th Amendment was of course the first step in this process]. That instead of being an Individual, I'm now a part of a group. Other major steps towards this stripping of the Individual comes with things like the New Deal, the defining of belief into a Left-Right/Dem-Rep type of mindset, and the list goes on. This of course has occurred incrementally, so as to condition the People to not only accept it, but in many ways to prefer to it.

As you say, men like Ron Paul are not here to save us, but to walk with us in the fight to restore the Republic. The mindset of "political saviors", as we saw with "liberals" during Obama's campaign and as we see amongst "conservatives" now with the almost deification of Reagan, is exactly the crutch these tyrants want you to rely on -- you the People can do nothing, only "They" can save you. But history has shown that "They" have never saved anything, only the People have done that.

Unfortunately, the first step to restoring the Republic, Constitutional gov't, States Rights, and most importantly Individual Liberty, is for the People to answer the question: do you truly want to be "saved" from this tyranny, to stand & ACT upon conviction, in order to restore the Republic to its rightful place?

Despite my hopes, I can't help but admit that so long as the People get a new iDohicker, that next season's American Idol is as enthralling as the last, that information continues to be regulated by those with a hand-in-the-game [corporate media], I fear the People will be content with this corporate oligarchy and have no qualms with shuffling off the Constitution, the Republic, and Liberty.`But I truly hope the People prove me wrong.

Let us hope something

Let us hope something changes. Well said.

What really happened to "States Rights"...?

I am a resident of North Carolina. I don't say "I am a citizen of NC" because I don't think that is possible under the NC Constitution. PLease explain what needs to be done to bring the NC Constitution back into compliance with the concept of that state being a Republic.

Gary Shoemaker

Blessed are the peacemakers...

Where to Start...

Hey Gary,
You are correct, to some degree. You are a 'resident' of North Carolina because you are a U.S. citizen, as it applies to the 14th Amendment, residing within the territorial boundaries of North-Carolina. You are a citizen of North Carolina by virtue of your current status, however this political status is de facto in nature because of Reconstruction. The 14th Amendment is a nullity in law because of the mode in which it was ratified, and the Reconstruction Acts are as well because they are unconstitutional(Read President Johnson's Vetos on Reconstruction).

The current North Carolina constitution is also de facto in nature because it derives it pedigree from the North Carolina constitution of 1868, and it was ratified by U.S. citizens(14th Amendment), not the lawful body politic of North Carolina; the freemen of North-Carolina who established the Constitution of 1776. Now, here is the how all this applies under the doctrine of unconstitutional acts. See Marbury v. Madison, 5 US 137(1803); A treatise on Constitutional Limitations..., Thomas Cooley(1868); Norton v. Shelby County 118 US 425(1886). The lawful state government was put into abeyance by Congress through military force, in times of peace. Therefore the lawful constitution of North-Carolina is the Constitution of 1776, as amended in 1835. The laws under that constitution are the ones that apply as well - This is were the work begins, because those laws have not been revised since then, and many no longer apply, such as slavery, and freemen blacks (I in no way support or am trying to resurrect that institution).

So, to bring North-Carolina back into the de jure, one must have a claim upon which relief can be granted; you have to assert that you are a freemen/citizen of the lawful State. The laws and constitution of the lawful State of North-Carolina address this issue. Now, each of us must make a decision on how far to push the issue, and it is a personal decision. I am taking the legal argument into the courts, I do not have a 'drivers license'(you have to have controversy and be directly affected to raise the issue). There are a variety of ways to get into the courts to raise the issue. Some may not have the stomach for such a thing, and that is understandable. However, there are a plethora of things a man or woman can to help bring the lawful State out of abeyance, participate, work to educate people and yourself on the issue, financial support for the court battles, etc...

I hope this give some perspective, and answers your questions to some degree. I will look forward to hearing back from you.

Isaac

P.S.
Some court cases on U.S. citizenship:

“The only absolute and unqualified right of a United States citizen is to residence within the territorial boundaries of the United States,” US vs. Valentine 288 F. Supp. 957, and is considered to be a citizen of the District of Columbia, “A person may be a citizen of the United States and not a citizen of any particular state. (cite Slaughter-House cases) This is the condition of citizens residing in the District of Columbia and in the territories of the United States, or who have taken up a residence abroad. (cite Hepburn vs. Ellzey 6 US 445)

“The privileges and immunities clause of the 14th Amendment protects very few rights because it neither incorporates the Bill of Rights, nor protects all rights of individual citizens. Instead this provision protects only those rights peculiar to being a citizen of the federal government; it does not protect those rights which relate to state citizenship.” Jones v. Temmer, 89 F. Supp 1226

My Blog has more info as well

"PLease explain what needs to

"PLease explain what needs to be done to bring the NC Constitution back into compliance with the concept of that state being a Republic."

a good place to start would be www.ncrepublic.org