7 votes

Bill of Rights - a piece of toilet paper for the Supreme Court?

The 9th Amendment to the US Constitution reads:

"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

In my opinion the Supreme Court violated this prohibition of very certain legal constructions when it have construed that the imposing of the penalty for not concluding the contract of the health insurance is a "tax" imposed rightfully using the taxation clause from the enumeration of the Congress powers in the Art. I sec. 8 of the US Constitution.

Justice Roberts in support of his argumentation even used the 1895 Hooper v. California quote:

"every reasonable construction must be resorted to, in order to save a statute from unconstitutionality" (page 38 of the ruling)

(This from the context ripped quote, good to note, comes from a ruling about a state, not federal law, moreover even more notably in a commerce clause not the taxation clause case.)

Although maybe correct in the Hopper v California in this Obamacare case is such argumentation clearly inherently flawed. -The construction of the penalty as "tax" in fact doesn't save the statute (still reading "penalty"), but deceptively rewrites it to make completely different meaning "tax", moreover with the absolutely clear and only intent: to give the government not primarily a source of revenue, but an unconstitutional right to create new coercive powers against recognized peoples rights.

The "penalty" is certainly something else than a "tax" - both in practical and legal sense. -And what else it is than a penalty if one is doomed to become coerced into concluding a contract of health insurance and if he anyway does not want to conclude it and pay whole the life the insurance, then pay whole the life anyway to IRS a considerable amount of money without obtaining any benefit of the insurance whatsoever.

Good to note the Supreme Court in the same ruling quite clearly recognized the natural right of the people not to purchase the insurance. And this right was clearly disparaged with the same Supreme Court ruling - construing that the Congress (and therefore in practical consquence the executive government agency IRS) has the right to use its taxation power to charge the people a tax for purpose of coercing them into waiving their right not to conclude contract of the health insurance.

Such judicial legislation activism construing the right of the government to impose taxes clearly not for primary purpose of creating revenue, but for purpose of coercing the people (who usually don't have the health insurance, because they don't have enough money for paying it) not only into buying the insurance, but into a solidarity (with the other people who have the money and have the insurance and with the federal government bureaucracy pursuing purportedly socially beneficial policies) and coercing them to conclude a contract - is plain and simple illegal - not just because generally the coercing into contracts is illegal and the resulting contracts are null or at least voidable (as the disenters Scalia, Kennedy, Thomas and Alito indeed acknowledge at the page 159 of the ruling - and especially when signed with "in protest" statement), but because such a disparagement of the peoples rights is quite explicitely prohibited by the US Constitution.

Indeed the Supreme Court in the same ruling syllabus states:

"The Framers knew the difference between doing something and doing nothing. They gave Congress the power to regulate commerce, not to compel it. Ignoring that distinction would undermine the principle that the Federal Government is a government of limited and enumerated powers. (page 3 of the ruling syllabus)

The federal government has the right to use its power (i.e. to impose taxes), but generally it is prohibited to use it for the purpose of coercing people into waiving their rights i.e right of not buying something they voluntarily and knowingly don't want.

Additionally, the same Supreme Court ruling strucked down the penalization of the states if they don't participate in the expansion of the Medicaid - which according to Justice Roberts " rests on whether the State voluntarily and knowingly accepts the terms of the ‘contract.’ (page 53 of the ruling).

So why the penalty is upheld for the individual people if they voluntarily and knowingly don't want participate in the health insurance resp. accept its terms of the contract and conclude it? (Maybe not just because they don't have money, but i.e. also because they don't want to participate in expensive, inefficient, by FDA, CDC... regulation monopoly administered system, or they prefer pay cash for what they really want at the moment - not pay in advance for something or something else a system will maybe, and maybe not, prepare for them, including all the bureaucracy coming with it etc.)

Does it mean the States (which sued the federal government in this case) getting the federal subsidies (yes paid by taxpayer money) have right not to be penalized (perhaps simply because it would be really absurd for federal government first subsidize the States and then get the subsidies back using a penalization), while the individual people, who don't receive the federal subsidies have not such right?

The Supreme Court clearly has no right whatsoever to impose taxes and definitely not for the purpose of construing the unconstitutional penalties (imposed by the federal government for not concluding a contract) legal.

It is notable that Justice Roberts in his opinion invoked the 180 years old justice Story quote:

"No court ought, unless the terms of an act rendered it unavoidable, to give a construction to it which should involve a violation, however unintentional, of the constitution. (page 37 of the ruling)

Why he absurdly used it to defend the ruling where he then with the majority of the court justices violated by their ruling the 9th Amendment?

And I really wonder why this doesn't make headlines - because it is quite clearly an illegal attempt of an unprecedented extension of the federal power on the expenses of the peoples rights and one of the highest increase of the taxes in the history of USA.

Although it is not widely known it in fact was the documented intent of the 9th Amendment framers - quite exactly to prevent constructive enlargements of the federal power. James Madison wrote the 9th Amendment demanded by states to limit federal powers, the amendment which was discussed so fervently that the disputes about it delayed the ratification of the Bill of Rights more than 2 years.

"Obscured by the contemporary assumption that the Ninth Amendment is about rights while the Tenth Amendment is about powers, the historical roots of the Ninth Amendment can be found in the state ratification convention demands for a constitutional amendment prohibiting the constructive enlargement of federal power." (Kurt T. Lash: The Lost Original Meaning of the Ninth Amendment, Texas Law Review, Volume 83, Number 2, December 2004)

What else it is than the constructive enlargement of the federal powers when the US Supreme Court - by mere loose interpretation and in direct contradiction to the letter of the statute - gives the government right to tax for primary purpose of coercing people into doing and paying what the government wants them to pay and do, moreover coerce them so into a conclusion of a contract?

Such a precedent would be in my opinion extremely dangerous, opening a whole new category of government despotical coercive powers using the army of the IRS thugs especially directed against poor people.

I believe it should be struck down by ruling of the local courts that the use of this Supreme Court ruling as precedent for enforcing the individual mandate is unconstitutional for violation of the 9th Amendment prohibition and therefore the individual mandate should become unenforceable due to the supreme law of the land clause in the Art. 6 of the US Constitution.

In my opinion the local courts could throw any of the penalty enforcement cases arising under the ACA after 2014 on this basis. I am pretty sure that such precedents would at least hold much more water than this individual mandate ruling by the federal Supreme Court.

A warning for the end: I live in EU where the individual mandate was introduced decades ago. Of course nobody from government called it a tax then. In the beginning it was also burdened with a minor penalty imposed for not paying the insurance. But it was then obviously too mild and many paid neither the insurance, nor the penalties. So they then passed draconian measures. Not only the penalties rose considerably and now are much higher than the insurance itself and are extrajudicially enforceable by so called private executors using property seizures and levies - which continues to ruin the poorest people - but in our country you can now end for as much as 10 years in prison for evading health insurance payments and it is now under the very same criminal statute as tax evasion.
What we unfortunately don't have in EU is the 9th Amendment, so we are absolutely defenceless against such injustices.

Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

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

Good write.

Whether or not your reading holds up in state courts post '14 I can't say, but it's certainly an argument to consider.
But it is becoming clearer that the courts is not the venue for remedy. I believe impeachment of Roberts is the proper course of action for the sake of liberty.
Also, thanks for the warning...should be required reading for all.

Undo what Wilson did

I don't know with the Roberts

I surely think he should know limitations of his powers, but problem is that the 9th Amendment argument was not presented by the plaintiffs, so how the court could consider it? Usually the courts are reluctant to consider arguments which aren't at all presented by the plaintiffs - if such arguments even fall into their mind. As I wrote below - Nemo iudex sine actore.

I also think that the 9th Amendment argument is at least worth consideration and in my opinion it should be reviewed by some American lawyers (I'm obviously not, but my constitutional law professor from my university usually agrees with my arguments) - because perhaps if it would succeed it would be in my opinion really major breaktrough precedent in limiting federal government power in general. - Because if the Supreme Court would acknowledge that the rights of the government to use its powers are limited to such uses which don't disparage peoples natural rights, then it would be a small step for the plaintiffs but giant leap back to the constitutional republic with powers of the government strictly limited to those which aren't at least so openly wrongful as to uphold coerced contract as something constitutional.

With the warning it is really serious, I personally know several people here who have had partially or completely ruined their lives by the individual mandate penalties which now are like interest of interest - they exponentially rise if one hasn't money to pay them. It also happened many times that the employers didn't pay the insurance for their employees for years and then bankrupted and disappeared - and because the people were poor and didn't have money for lawyers the insurance companies using dirty tricks and sometimes even physical power coerced them into signing the debt acknowledgement statements (usually if the people came alone they locked them incommunicado in their facilities until they signed - without wittnesses to have slightest chance to successfully sue them) and now the poorest people are liable for unpayable debts which rise much faster than they are able to pay them - which usually ends that this people have their property taken and if it is not enough whenever they go into legal job the executors come and confiscate a bulk of their salary leaving them on existential minimum (like ~200$) or if they don't have job they even confiscate their social security money and usually this people end as desperate homeless without much prospect of normal life without perhaps going to start new life somewhere far abroad - which many anyway can't do and if they can it is without prospect to ever come back, because then they would get busted and put into jail. Some estimate that this affected tens of thousands of people in our 10 million country - and this people simply didn't anything illegal at all.
This is in my opinion after experiences a trap, not a government help to the poor people to get their health care affordable.
Also for another example the individual mandate here is impossible to avoid even in the case you leave the country and continent and go live say in South America - even you obviously cannot get any health care here in Europe for your insurance, when you're in South America, it doesn't mean you can cancel your health insurance here - you're still liable to pay it even you never come back, so after some time they can fill civil charges and get you tried without your presence or even criminal charges against you using tax evasion and creditor injury statutes and make you wanted internationally.
I even have friend, a quite famous musician here, who left the country just BEFORE the individual mandate was enacted, he was living 6 years in USA, then he came back and bump - the state insurance company (which meanwhile was vested with the extrajudicial powers) said he owes the 6 years of basic insurance premium + penalties + penalties for not paying the penalties - a real pile of money - even he never had any insurance contract at all, he again virtually became homeless, all that even he left the country without knowing anything about the individual mandate because it was still not enacted when he was leaving and the subsequent draconian measures amended to it and he again didn't anything illegal in my opinion. He just didn't do what the govt wanted him to do - pay - even he obviously couldn't get any medical services for it being not in the country or even the same continent for years and not knowing the governmet want's him to pay something in the first place.
I really mean the warnings - the danger is very real and indeed Americans should learn from the very bad experiences in Europe. You at least can try the 9th Amendment, we here don't have even that.

The Supreme Court...

The Supreme Court has always treated the Constitution like toilet paper. Frankly, I don't see the point of even having a Supreme Court in the first place if they're just going to uphold unconstitutional acts.

The Supreme Court are only people

Yes they should not uphold unconstitutional statutes, but there's old legal doctrine which I think is valid: Nemo iudex sine actore - no judge without a plaintiff - and there's no trace of an 9th Amendment argument whatsoever in the plaintiffs arguments in this case. So how the judges could make an opinion on it.
Yeah, one can argue they should know the US Constitution and should know they are prohibited to make constructions disparaging peoples natural rights. But what if they just don't know (perhaps because the 9th Amendment is arguably the most misinterpreted one in the Bill of Rights - and for simple reason - we have a proverb here: the carps don't drain their own pond - here the abundant pond of potential wicked legal constructions to usurp more and more power with less and less responsibility and more and more on expenses of the peoples rights and wallet content) or simply forget under the tremendous push from the government?
I think the case should be refilled with the 9th Amendment argument.

Well if it is going to be

Well if it is going to be toilet paper, we might as well auction it off to the golden toilet crowd. At least it would take a chunk out of the debt


I surely would never exchange the Bill of Rights

for discount on the phony debt which was anyway made chiefly by the government abusing its powers. - there's anyway not enough dollars in circulation to pay the US national debt, so to try pay a tiny part of it in exchange for the Bill of Rights would be in my opinion not only exercise in futility but clearly much dumber action than at least try to enforce the Bill of Rights until such atempts will be eventually successful.

My Dissent on The ACA Ruling

See: : http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/slipopinions.aspx., "National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius"

Justice Roberts clearly wrote, "The Federal Government does not have the power to order people to buy health insurance." (see: page 44, paragraph 4 of the review). Thus the ruling struck down the individual mandate requiring Americans to buy health insurance as unconstitutional.

What the majority upheld was the penalty (a capitation administered by the IRS) levied upon the heads of the American people based upon their income (see: page 44, paragraph 4, Roberts statement, "The Federal Government does have the power to impose a tax on those without health insurance.").

Roberts took the most narrow view of the taxing authority of Congress and admitted that (see: page 43, paragraph 2, "We have already explained that the shared responsibility payment’s practical characteristics pass muster as a tax under our narrowest interpretations of the taxing power.").

Roberts cited United States v. Butler - 297 U.S. 1 (1936) but did not acknowledge the Justices in that case found the federal government in violation of the Constitution when they passed a statute that usurped State's rights by regulating agriculture and the tax imposed as a penalty.

Roberts tried to justify in his discourse that Congress had historically used their taxing authority to affect social and economic changes in the behavior of the American people. But in all those instances in history, the behavioral influence was accomplished AFTER an individual engaged in commerce (e.g., buying cigarettes, alcohol, etc. and the federal tax imposed at point of sale).

Now the Supreme Court has introduced a very dangerous precedent by opening the door for Congress to impose a tax on the American people for NOT engaging in a behavior (e.g. buying health insurance).

This entire statute must be repealed as it will add a tremendous cost to small businesses who will be required to subsidize the health insurance industry as well as private care hospitals that must, by most state laws, treat the indigent. It will not improve the healthcare for impoverished Americans as they will now have to spend more of what discretionary income they have on health insurance premiums or pay the penalty. Remember ACA requires health insurance companies to meet federal standards that include a broad range of health care coverage not all citizens need (e.g. mental health, pregnancy care, etc.). This will result in higher premiums, higher deductibles, higher co-payments and higher coinsurance payments for subscribers. You all know this to be factually true.

Look back 40 years ago when HMO's came into existence. The insurance companies schmoozed Congress with a propaganda campaign of "lower insurance premiums and broader medical/surgical care." The reality is higher health insurance costs and less healthcare coverage.

I'll leave this discussion with one immutable fact of economic life. Whenever a third party (e.g., insurance companies, the government, etc.) offers to subsidize an expense such as healthcare or education; prices will rise. Just look how higher education and healthcare costs have skyrocketed over the last few decades.

What the American people need are jobs, not government welfare. That's what Congress should be focused on.

I think

that not only SCOTUS construed that Congress has the right to impose a tax on "the American people for NOT engaging in a behavior" of buying health insurance, but because buying health insurance is without any doubt a conclusion of contract, the SCOTUS in fact construed an inherently coerced contract and I argue that this is from the side of the SCOTUS a severe violation of the 9th amendment prohibition.

It is very firmly established that the coerced contract is voidable as the dissenters note at the page 159 of the ruling pdf.

It is in fact not the Congress which claims taxation power - because the Congress passed the penalization of not concluding the health insurance contract as "penalty", not "tax". It is in fact federal executive as defendant in the case which claims such right for its executive agency IRS hidding behind Art. 1 sec. 8 Congressional powers and SCOTUS construes that claiming such right is rightful and in accordance with the Constitution

But in fact the SCOTUS construction - that the IRS has the right to collect the penalty as tax - clearly disparages recognized right of the people not to conclude contract (a contract is not only paying, it has numerous other conditions) under coercion, the construction is very unwise and I believe the 9th Amendment prohibits SCOTUS to make such construction in the first place.

Not only taxation power of the Congress is limited, but also SCOTUS rights to make legal constructions are limited - to those which don't deny or disparage peoples natural rights protected by 9th Amendment.

Just for explanation: "Right" is something else than "power", and the rights to use any power including power to impose taxes are limited. For example if Congress wants to use its power to pass law, the resulting law must be necessary, proper and cannot be subjected of constructions denying or disparaging natural rights of the people - which in other words mean the right to use power must be used in rightful not wrongful manner - to construe right to use power under taxation clause with the intention to coerce contract conclusion is clearlty wrongful and therefore illegal.

robot999's picture

Very interesting

read about SCOTUS and Obamacare

"Government is the entertainment division of the military-industrial complex". - Frank Zappa

indeed interesting

what is written in the article is basically true, and I mostly agree with that - especially that people in first place should guard govt. power - and also with the note on the end that the unfortunate part of the decision is indeed its reading that the government has unlimited powers to tax and that right to use this powers is by SCOTUS construed as legal and as within the frame of the Constitution -even for the sole purpose: to give the government right to use its powers to coerce people into concluding a contract of health insurance - which is indeed at odds with Americans but I think it is not only "not wise", but illegal for the reasons I tryied to describe here.

When did you sign the

When did you sign the Declaration of Independence? When did you sign the Constitution? If you are not a signatory how can you be a party to that compact? If you're not a party to the compact, how can the Bill of Rights have ever been enumerated for you? It can't, it can only be enumerated on behalf of the signatories to the compact or the Posterity to the signatories thereof. Not you and me.

Therefore they have the authority to do everything they are doing. "To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers" They make the laws and all the laws they make are considered "necessary and proper". You being notwithstanding to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. You, not being "We the People of the United States" do not get to say what necessary and proper is and your opinion that there is a violation means nothing because it's not based in reality. It's based on a history that you were taught and that you cannot prove.

"But, indeed, no private person has a right to complain, by suit in court, on the ground of a breach of the Constitution. The Constitution it is true, is a compact, but he is not a party to it."

The 9th Amendment

is about full retention of natural rights by the people - it means about rights, which are NOT enumerated - it means the rights not codified by the Supreme laws of the land in the United States - and that the certain rights enumerated in the US Constitution, not just in the Bill of Rights, should not be construed to deny or disparage the other natural rights retained by the people - the rights which, exactly, never were enumerated on behalf of the signatories, who waived any claim of this rights and for their posterity too, so the rights rested retained by the posterity of the non-signatories. That's indeed the trick of the constitutional republic victory over the tyrany back in 1789 when the Bill of Rights was passed in Congress and December 15 1791, when the Bill of Rights came into the effect after ratified by States - and clearly during the life of it's signatories who recognized it as a legal fact. It can be proved by numerous legal exhibits in written.
So you are obviously wrong.

What a load of crap. Do you

What a load of crap. Do you not know the difference between posterity and Posterity? Or people and People? How about polish and Polish? Because you are absolutely not the Posterity here.

If it is possible for you to have unalienable rights then you have the right to contract out of all your rights. Which is what you have done as Constitutor.

You wear their flag, their constitution, and their team jersey, but you're not on the team. How often do you go around introducing yourself as "We the People"?

"Some people believe with great fervor preposterous things that just happen to coincide with their self-interest." Judge Frank Easterbrook, Coleman v. CIR (7th Cir 1986) 791 F2d 68 at 69 [and quoted in several subsequent court decisions].

BTW there's nothing special about a republic. Ever hear of the Peoples Republic of China? They're all republics which comes from res publica, the public thing, the public dead thing. Which is why they put E Pluribus Unum on the money, the "public" "money". You're just made public inside someone elses re-public. But that's still not you because there is a difference between fictional titles and flesh and blood. However, all those titles such as "citizen" are property of the United States. You just like to wear the coat and think it's a part of you when it's not, it's a part of "them" and you cannot dispute anything they do with their system. Because it's NOT YOURS.

If you want to exercise rights where is your contract position to say you have rights? Nowhere, because citizens never did anything in exercising Self Determination, ever. That revolutionary army didn't either. None of them pledge life, fortune, and sacred honor. They rebelled when they didn't get paid meaning they were a mercenary army. If they had pledged they wouldn't have needed to get paid. Just like all you patriots out here chasing money that's not yours.

You're 200 years behind the program. "All treaties signed..." > supreme law of the land > Reagan Concordat > Vatican...

Definition of DEFINITION
: an act of determining; specifically : the formal proclamation of a Roman Catholic dogma

Unless you can show extraordinary evidence that you are not ruled by the Holy See, you are deemed to be ruled by them and they grant themselves immunity and indulgences do whatever they want. Including extending to you grace and mercy.

Clean-hands doctrine... You have no idea what you're even involved in and what you're up against and that doesn't make me wrong, you just don't have a clue yet. Which is why you sully yourself with remaining a citizen, an irresponsible debtor, slave looking for a hand out from government, a 3rd party interloper.

A "systematized delusion" is one based on a false premise, pursued by a logical process of reasoning to an insane conclusion ; there being one central delusion, around which other aberrations of the mind converge. Taylor v. McClintock, 112 S.W. 405, 412, 87 Ark. 243.

So no matter how much logic you try to pour on top of your delusion, at the end of the day, it's still a delusion no matter how "right" you are.

"But, indeed, no private person has a right to complain, by suit in court, on the ground of a breach of the Constitution. The Constitution it is true, is a compact, but he is not a party to it."

You're right

that I'm not a Posterity here - As I stated in the article I live in Europe as all my ancestors did.
The 1st, 2nd, 4th, 9th, 10th and 17th Amendments read: "people", not "People". (and that's why the people ARE the party to the US Constitution compact - and for the purposes of defending the peoples rights it doesn't matter whether the people is a 3rd party to it in a legal sense or not, because it was on numerous occassions successfully used for defending the rights of the people in really vast amount of the court cases.)
I live in a quite unique country which since it was declared independent in 1918 as a secular constitutional republic, subsequently recognized under international law by all countries of the world, NEVER had any Concordate with Vatican - because our presidents vested with the unique power to do so, repeatedly refused to ratify it. The history of the attempts to make our republic conclude the Concordate with Vatican in the last century is indeed an extraordinary one. Our capital long before that was for hundreds of years the seat of the Holly Empire throne, yet since the revolt in 15th century after Jan Hus was burned to death and subsequent crackdowns on our people by roman-catholics, repeated for hundreds of years, the people here don't much like them, most are without confession and only ~11% of the population are baptized roman-catholics. We surely aren't subjects of the Holly Sea rule - and definitely not in a legal sense.

WTF are you talking about?

WTF are you talking about? This has nothing to do with anything.

If I were to write- "we the

If I were to write-

"we the people of the United State" versus "We the People of the United States" can you not see the difference?


"We the People of the United States" versus "The United States of America", can you not see that these are two very distinct entities?

You are not the "People" and that is the entire issue here across the board so when you claim that, you're the one trespassing, and you're the one that's going to jail.


"But, indeed, no private person has a right to complain, by suit in court, on the ground of a breach of the Constitution. The Constitution it is true, is a compact, but he is not a party to it."

The Bill of Rights was not written for the Supreme Court

The Bills Of Rights were written for we the people, not the Supreme Court. If it's now toilet paper it's because we keep wiping ourselves with it; not using it to control government and protecting our rights. Our rights are still in full force and effect, contrary to bogus unconstitutional executive overreaching. All we need are "belligerent claimants in person" claiming their 9 square feet of courtroom floor.

"To make all Laws which shall

"To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof."

There is no such thing as an unconstitutional law because if they passed it, it had to be "necessary and proper", and they're the ones who get to deem what that is, not you.

"All Debts contracted and Engagements entered into, before the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be as valid against the United States under this Constitution, as under the Confederation.

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution(of any State not the US) or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding."

Notwithstanding? That's you, the citizen, the adverse belligerent debtor. Everything they do is upholding the Constitution. You get belligerent with them and they'll just un-grant your granted civil rights like dog that craps in the house.

If you were "winning", you would not need to go into their courtroom at all. So if you're in there, you're going the wrong way and doing it wrong.


The Corpus Juris Secundum (C.J.S.) is an encyclopedia of U.S. law. Its full title is Corpus Juris Secundum: Complete Restatement Of The Entire American Law As Developed By All Reported Cases (1936- ). It contains an alphabetical arrangement of legal topics as developed by U.S. federal and state cases (1658 - date).

The CJS is an authoritative 20th century American legal encyclopedia that provides a clear statement of each area of law including areas of the law that are evolving and provides footnoted citations to case law and other primary sources of law. Named after the 6th century Corpus Juris Civilis of Emperor Justinian I of the Byzantine Empire, the first codification of Roman law and civil law. (The name Corpus Juris literally means "body of the law"; Secundum denotes the second edition of the encyclopedia, which was originally issued as Corpus Juris by the American Law Book Company.)

If you examine CJS Volume VII Chapter 4, "Attorney & Client", you'll find your attorney has dual obligations:

"Attorney with an obligation to the courts and to the public no less significant than his obligation to his clients. Thus, an attorney occupies a dual position which imposes dual obligations."

An attorney has an obligation to the court and to you, the client, but who comes first?

His first duty is to the courts and the public, not to the client, and wherever the duties to his client conflict with those he owes as an officer of the court in the administration of justice, the former must yield to the latter.

An attorneys first obligation is NOT to you, his client, but to the court !

CJS goes on to define "client" as:

A client is one who applies to a lawyer or counselor for advice and direction in a question of law, or commits his cause to his management in prosecuting a claim of defending against a suit in a court of justice, one who retains the attorney is responsible to him for the management of the suit, one who communicates facts to an attorney expecting professional advice. Clients are also called "wards of the court" in regard to their relationship with their attorneys.

According to Black's Law Dictionary Fifth Edition defines "wards of the court" as:

"Wards of the court" Infants and persons of unsound mind Davis' Committee v. Loney 190 Ky. 644,162 S.W. 2d 189, 190. Their rights must be guarded jealously. Montgomery v. Erie R. Co., C.C.A.N.J., 97 F 2d 289, 290. See Guardianship.

By hiring an attorney to speak "for you", you tell the court you are unable to speak for yourself. You are incapable of legally defending yourself in court, and have brought with you, someone competent, to do it for you. You have labeled yourself as incompetent, unable to defend yourself, and therefore, are considered to be of unsound mind, for your own protection!


By "appearing" before the court, by and through an attorney, you automatically make a "general appearance", and acquiesce to the authority of the court ! This cures any and all defects in jurisdiction for the prosecutor, and relieves him of his duty to prove jurisdiction.

This is what it is to be represented, doesn't matter if you hire an attorney or elect a politician. To do so is to admit that you are incompetent and thus need to be represented and governed from without.

The primary reason why the individual citizens of a country create a political structure is a subconscious wish or desire to perpetuate their own dependency relationship of childhood. Simply put, they want a human god to eliminate all risk from their life, pat them on the head, kiss their bruises, put a chicken on every dinner table, clothe their bodies, tuck them into bed at night, and tell them that everything will be alright when they wake up in the morning.
This public demand is incredible, so the human god, the politician, meets incredibility with incredibility by promising the world and delivering nothing. So who is the bigger liar? the public? or the "godfather"?

This public behavior is surrender born of fear, laziness, and expediency. It is the basis of the welfare state as a strategic weapon, useful against a disgusting public.

The people hire the politicians so that the people can:

obtain security without managing it.
obtain action without thinking about it.
inflict theft, injury, and death upon others without having to contemplate either life or death.
avoid responsibility for their own intentions.
obtain the benefits of reality and science without exerting themselves in the discipline of facing or learning either of these things.

They give the politicians the power to create and manage a war machine to:

provide for the survival of the nation/womb.
prevent encroachment of anything upon the nation/womb.
destroy the enemy who threatens the nation/womb.
destroy those citizens of their own country who do not conform for the sake of stability of the nation/womb.

Politicians hold many quasi-military jobs, the lowest being the police which are soldiers, the attorneys and C.P.A.s next who are spies and saboteurs (licensed), and the judges who shout orders and run the closed union military shop for whatever the market will bear. The generals are industrialists. The "presidential" level of commander-in-chief is shared by the international bankers. The people know that they have created this farce and financed it with their own taxes (consent), but they would rather knuckle under than be the hypocrite.


"But, indeed, no private person has a right to complain, by suit in court, on the ground of a breach of the Constitution. The Constitution it is true, is a compact, but he is not a party to it."


According to the law which found the USA as a legal entity (-or at least we foreigners still recognize it as a legal fact of the domestic and international law) - The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America - passed unanimously on July 4 1776 by the Continental Congress - which reads:
"When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.
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 of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People 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. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security..."

-it is not only your right to claim the rights, but in the case it is clear that an absolute despotism is trying to reduce you under it is your duty to throw such government.
Indeed - if people don't fulfill their duties to guard their rights and liberties then they shouldn't wonder if they live in a dictatorship and not the constitutional republic the framers of the United States found.
The anniversary of the Declaration of Independence passing comes now in two days and Americans celebrate this holiday en masse to this days, so they should at least think about what is written there, and what does it mean the Independence, how it came and how it comes, otherwise such celebration has not much sense.

If you are not a party to the

If you are not a party to the Constitution, you have no contractual nexus to alter or abolish it. Right of the People means Right of the People, not right of the people. The People may have remedy here but you don't.

The Right of Self-Determination is about Self-governing. It is a choice and that choice was succinctly stated by Theodore Roosevelt in the Jamestown Exposition on April 26, 1907; when he said: "It behooves us to remember that men can never escape being governed. Either they must govern themselves or they must submit to being governed by others. If from lawlessness or fickleness, from folly or self-indulgence, they refuse to govern themselves, then most assuredly in the end they will have to be governed from the outside."; The question is governed how or by whom? As subject-citizen-debtor-slaves they must submit. Continuing he further states, "They can prevent the need of government from without only by showing that they possess the power of government from within, a sovereign can not make excuses for his failures; a sovereign must accept the responsibility for the exercise of the power that inheres in him, and where, as is true in our Republic, (if)the people are sovereign, then the people must show a sober understanding and a sane and steadfast purpose if they are to preserve that orderly liberty upon which as a foundation every republic must rest."
The principle comes to this. You can play these games inside their Ponzi-scheme and pretend you have rights and pretend your vote counts. Or, you can step up to the big leagues, dig your heels in, and learn international law where real sovereign rights are obtained. “Come together with others of goodwill and like mind” to exercise the Right of Self Determination. So that the liability and karmic debt of the equitable fraud which has been allowed to precipitate no longer sticks to you. Under the Doctrine of E Pluribus Unum and the Doctrine of Particeps Criminis, if you are One, out of the Many (and you are...), you are judged equally naked as such. All crimes, all injustices, all inequities, all unrighteousness committed by the Head on behalf of the Many, binds the Many who are all in collusion with one another as partners in crime.

"Has a throne of iniquity and destruction had fellowship with thee, one which devises mischief and misery by its decree?"

"But, indeed, no private person has a right to complain, by suit in court, on the ground of a breach of the Constitution. The Constitution it is true, is a compact, but he is not a party to it."

Not only the US Constitution

actually reads "rights" and "people", not "Rights" and "People" in the 9th Amendment - and good to note there's no occurence of "Rights" in the US Constitution whatsoever! (and there's also no occurence of a word "right" in the pre-Bill of Rights US Constitution whatsoever! - which at all doesn't mean it didn't enumerate the delegated limited rights of the government to have certain powers) - but the 9th Amendment itself has an informal title "Construction of Constitution" and the formal title of the 9th Amendment contained in the Analytical Index to the Constitution of the United States - which is good to note, an integral part of The Organic Laws of The United States of America actually reads: "Reserved rights of the States and the people".
And that's here the decisive legal fact. (a reserved right in this sense is also the right to secede or abolish federal government - which is even recognized by US natural law as "duty" when the govt. invariably becomes more nad more despotic - and yes, some indians already successfully did the former.)
The 9th Amendment with its context and titles mean in legal sense of construction that the people decided to give some rights to the States which then united gave limited part of their rights - described and limited by the US Constitution - to the federal government and retained all other rights (for themselves or gave them only to the States, not federal government) - which shall not be denied or disparaged using legal constructions (including some of yours!) of rights to have certain powers enumerated in the Constitution. Especially not in the case of unalienable rights.
The legal entity United States of America was created by sovereign States using the organic laws - that's for example the meaning of the "united" instead of "United" in the full title of the "Declaration of Independence". People->States->USA that's the way of the Construction of Constitution. The rights of the USA are not constituted neither by "People" nor "people" but by the several States. The rights of the States aren't constituted by neither USA nor "People", but by people living there. Which becomes obvious when you try to imagine the States without any people living there - such States would simply not exist at all and wouldn't have any rights because they would not have their constituents. The peoples rights aren't constituted at all, they are natural and that's the legal fact recognized i.e. by the 9th Amendment together with interdiction to construe the rights of the government to use the certain powers to disparage or deny the natural rights by upholding laws which alienate the recognized unalienable rights - which exacly is the coercing private contract in the case of unalienable right to Liberty.
So if the federal governement construes its limited rights for purposes of abuses of the powers given to it by the several States and their people to deny or disparage recognized unalienable natural rights of the people, it is in NO way a legal responsibility or karma or whatever of the people and it is solely the responsibility of the members of the federal government breaking their oaths. Power comes with responsibility - to use it rightfully and it is illegal to use it wrongfully. You have right to get license and drive, but you haven't right to drive drunk and put so other peoples rights in danger. The US govt. has right to use its power to tax you, but has no right to use the power to tax you for purpose of coercing private contract in seeking to be even more drunk on the illusion of unlimited power while seriously endangering the basics of the basics of the own state's principles and structural integrity. Even a power is enumerated in the Constitution as given to government it doesn't in ANY way mean it comes with the right to use it against unalienable natural rights of the people and any such construction is prohibited by the organic law - generally to everybody.

One also cannot be Particeps Criminis unwittingly moreover WITHOUT ANY powers to participate in it whatsoever - which one already delegated with its posterity to government - it would be an utter legal nonsense - not speaking that E Pluribus Unum is not a doctrine, it is an unofficial motto of the United States, adopted by Congress for US seal - before the Constitution and Bill of Rights were even much contemplated - in 1782 (so even if it would have the meaning you assert it was clearly superseded) and replaced in 1956 by the official motto "In God We Trust"), which has NO legal meaning whatsoever and patently not the meaning "the people are responsible for the government abusing its powers and the government does nothing else than that it protects the Constitution".

No, the members of the government are fully legally responsible for their crimes and the organic law abiding people AREN'T the accomplices to their crimes. It can be argued some of the people are partially morally responsible for the evils done by the government by encouraging it by their gullibility, pasivity and ignorance, but it is surelly way more justifiable by their practically virtually powerless situation of being constantly under the fire of propaganda lies and without direct executive power share - than the deliberate criminal acts done by the government members wrongfully exercising their powers.
What you claim using - good to note - sometimes very dubious pseudolegal constructions is sometimes interesting point for discussion, but sometimes could be also very incoherent and wrong.

I surely don't believe international law has much use for seeking individual remedies in despotic states, federations or empires and I would even think that it is in its context one of the great dangers to the peoples unalienable natural rights, because I have already seen how hard and costly it is to try defend individual rights in international courts, not speaking that I have first hand experience from top politics of practical non-viability of defending states rights to defend own citizens unalienable rights using international law when facing powerful despotic empire of EU which doesn't respect any law and does everything to destroy last isles of sovereignity - which means (legal and other) capacity to manage own affairs - which for me means, equals, Liberty.
And after my own experiences I believe, that people who think that an international law can somehow protect their rights better than they themselves with others in their own states seeking freedom - to have own affairs in own hands - I consider being seriously naive or even insane and I'm always a bit suspicious when somebody claims something like that and I pose myself the question whether they do it unwittingly as victims of international communist/fascist propaganda or they actually are members of that big league.

You Are Correct

"The construction of the penalty as "tax" in fact doesn't save the statute."

Peter Schiff explains why starting at 4:56: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NNCyEC9r_mk

"Bipartisan: both parties acting in concert to put both of their hands in your pocket."-Rothbard


Peter Schiff can be also right, that it could end that only sick people buy the insurance and the rest will pay the penalty, oups sorry tax, or nothing and only when they get sick, they'll insure themselves, because the bill coerces the insurance companies to make a contract with them like with people which aren't sick - which is again the same case, just the insurance company is the injured. But my bet - from the experience in EU is - that the government would push to make more penalties, then their enforcement and ultimately the criminal prosecution as it happened in EU - because it is always easier to crackdown on poor defenseless people than big subsidized financial companies contributing to politicians.

"What we unfortunately don't

"What we unfortunately don't have in EU is the 9th Amendment, so we are absolutely defenceless against such injustices."

We don't have a 9th amendment or any other amendmant in America either. In case you haven't noticed the constitution (which says that we can't go to war without a declaration of war from the congress, although we haven't had one since WW2) the consitution means NOTHING to our government. The only thing that counts is who has the guns. Politics is power not principles or laws. The government has ALL the power and the people have none. In fact the average American has no more influence over their government than the average citizen of the Soviet Union had over theirs.

The American people no longer live under rule of law so we are as defenseless as you are against injustices.


it looks you're right. Only hope are the people who take the US Constitution seriously. Only them maybe can change the unfortunate state - if they get more knowledge, wisdom and guns than the government. After all the right to keep and bear arms is there "to secure free state". Somebody I think JFK stated: "Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable." Everybody knows what was his fate, perhaps because he was virtually alone with this opinion in the nation which once throwed such corrupt government.
EDIT: I also believe the people have rights only if they assert and defend them - I think they should at least demand the government not to do things which are explicitely prohibited by the Constitution - as it is in my opinion in this case.

"Only hope are the people who

"Only hope are the people who take the US Constitution seriously. Only them maybe can change the unfortunate state - if they get more knowledge, wisdom and guns than the government."

We can do it without the guns, using the ballot box, if we can convince more people to take the Constitution seriously. That's where we are. It's still a work in progress, but our numbers are growing.

I must be willing to give up what I am in order to become what I will be. Albert Einstein

ballot box

"We can do it without the guns, using the ballot box"

Thank God the ballot box is fraud-proof so the elections cannot be rigged. Right?

Oh, wait ...

I would be not so sure

There were clearly studies made, which really suggest that the electronic voting machines can have their software modified to employ algorithmic vote flipping, it made news even on national TV several times, so I would think election fraud is not only possible, but imminent - given what is at stake for establishment if the people vote them out - virtually everything including their lives. Such group entity operating in mode of ultimate survival drive can be really dangerous given what potentially destructive powers they have. So I think the advice of 'wise as serpents, gentle as doves' is indeed relevant here and I admire Ron Paul and his supporters going this way.

I would also prefer peaceful way

It would be a real disaster if there would be a violent revolution in USA. I think everybody should be warned, when one considers how many guns and how many rednecks are in USA. And I'm glad more and more people learn about the Constitution, to be able demand and assert their rights in clever not violent manner. And I'm sure the numbers of this people grow - I watch this Ron Paul liberty movement several years and it makes a real progress in my opinion. Only thing I'm not sure about is the integrity of the election - which is now mostly using not the ballot box, but the electronic voting machines, where the verification of the election results is sometimes hardly possible and so the possibility of fraud is imminent.