Sovereignty

            In a recent essay about the Supreme Court rulings on Healthcare and the Arizona Immigration law I used the terms sovereignty and citizen together.  Just a few days ago I received a call from my middle son who is with a Sheriffs Department in the south.  He was telling me about an arrest he had made and the subsequent court date.  He had arrested an individual on drug charges, this individual claimed to be a sovereign citizen therefore the law did not apply to him.  It was an interesting conversation and the research I did later on Sovereign Citizenship was even more interesting, it was also frightening.  Frightening in the sense that I in no way want to have what I have written to be misunderstood to be an endorsement of Sovereign Citizenship.

            The Sovereign Citizenship website mentions that the group believes themselves to be free from all laws.  They have no identification, no drivers license, no social security number, no registrations, nothing.  When they drive they claim they are not driving, they are traveling and there are no laws that prevent them from traveling.  There is even a handbook they will send you to show you how to live a Sovereign Citizen lifestyle.  The website claims they do not advocate violence nut in recent history some of the more horrific violent acts, especially towards Law Enforcement, have been committed by Sovereign Citizens.  Terry Nichols was a Sovereign Citizen as were the Father and Son in Arkansas recently that shot down 2 Police Officers performing a simply traffic stop.  When I went on to obtain more information about these people I came across an article on the FBI website talking about Sovereign Citizens and the domestic threat they pose, not all mind you, but like other groups the extreme faction; sound like any other group that seems to be in the news a lot.  At the end of the FBI article there was a paragraph about the signs to look for in identifying Sovereign Citizens, this was the part that prompted me to write this.  The FBI mentioned a few things in particular, speaking of the Bible and quoting the Constitution.  These happen to be the same types of things that are typically quoted by Tea Party groups, Independents and Libertarians that desire a return to the Constitution.  In short Sovereign Citizenship is not the type of Citizen Sovereignty that I am talking about when I mentioned it in my essay or anytime I mention the 9^th Amendment, nor is it the type that any true Patriot of the United States and the Constitution of the United States are talking about.

            Citizen Sovereignty as it applies to the Constitution means that the Citizens are the first step of chain when it comes to the Governments of both the States and the United States.  Citizens created the States and the States created the Union that we call the United States.  Citizens are the ones that are responsible for electing the officials that will represent them at both the State level and the Federal level.  If there were no citizens there would be no Government, I know that is an obvious statement but it is true, it also means that the Citizens are the pool from which the Politicians come, so if the Politicians are a problem then it is the fault of the Citizenry.  I can not and will not take credit for that thought, George Carlin, the late great comedian that told it like it was, had a skit using that thought and he was right, 100% right.  In Carlins’ skit he asks where all the good people are, are the Politicians we keep sending to Washington, and to our State Legislatures, the best we have?  I don’t believe so but until more of the People understand what the 9^th Amendment was written for and stop being afraid to stand up we are going to continue to get the same type of Politicians we currently have.  The Tea Party and others that feel as I do believe in having a Government, just not an out of control Government.  The Nation is too large to not have a Government; there would be utter chaos without one.  In truth I believe our Nation is too large for the Government we currently have and we are going to see utter chaos regardless.

            The Government we have currently seems to believe themselves to be more like the British Monarchy of old, the same Monarchy our founding generation fought against, and the same Monarchy our founding generation gave up their lives and their fortunes to free us from.  When this Nation earned its freedom from the British Monarchy it was because the Nation was made up of independent minded people that believed in personal responsibility.  Today our Government does not believe any of us to be responsible enough to make our own decisions; we are not smart enough to think for ourselves.  The Sovereign Citizenship group would tell you to just ignore the Government, ignore their laws and ignore their regulations.  A Sovereign Citizen in accordance with the 9^th Amendment will tell you to learn about your Government at all levels and to get involved, even if it only means getting to know your Politicians and voting with knowledge not because of popularity.  We have been led to believe only those with money can be elected to public office, maybe it’s time to disprove that myth, maybe it’s time for Citizen Statesmen again.

           

Steve Avery

7/29/2012

A Month To Be Remembered

             The month of June in the year of our Lord 2012 will be a month to be remembered when it comes to the Supreme Court of the United States, or as is the popular way of saying it these days, the SCOTUS.  SCOTUS sounds more like a grunge band then the Supreme Court of the Nation; then again at this point with the recent rulings I believe I would rather take the rulings of a grunge band then to take the rulings of the Supreme Court of the United States.

            Recently the much discussed and controversial Arizona law SB 1070, finally came before the Supreme Court.  The Supreme Court surprisingly upheld a majority of the law but they did vote against Arizona in 3 parts that took most of the bite out of the law.  Specifically they voted against the warrant less arrests of individuals that were in the country illegally and suspected of committing a crime and the section that made it separate State crime for illegal immigrants to work in the State.  The Supreme Court argued that these sections violated the Constitutional power of the Congress to establish a uniform of Naturalization (Article II, Section VIII, Number 4).  This is only one of the problems associated with the Supreme Courts ruling, as I have stated before there is a big difference between Naturalization and Immigration, they are two different things, just look up the definitions of each, I would think Judges that are smart enough to be appointed to the Supreme Court would already know this without having to reference Webster’s Dictionary or some High School Graduates blog.

            Immigration to put it simply is the act of moving from one place to another.  When said immigration is done with the permission of the final location we call it illegal immigration.  If someone immigrated from the public road in front of my house onto my property without permission it is called trespassing.  Trespassing and illegal immigration are one and the same, therefore someone that has entered Arizona, or any other State in the Union, illegally has committed a crime and should be arrested.  As in most cases of trespassing if the crime is simply that they were in a place they had no right to be in they should have their day in court, receive a fine and then they should be returned to the place they are allowed to be in legally, in the case of Arizona we are talking about back across the border into Mexico.

            Naturalization can only occur after legal immigration into the States of the Union has occurred.  Naturalization is the process of becoming an American citizen.  Part of this process includes a residency requirement which would lead one to believe that would mean a certain amount of time legally living in one of the States within the United States.  Currently each State, as far as I know, have their own laws of residency before you can consider yourself to be a citizen of that State, since the United States are made up of the individual States then it would lead me to believe that you would have to first meet the residency laws of the State you have chosen to live in before you can meet the requirements for Naturalization to be a citizen of these United States.

            The residency statement leads me to my final dissention with the ruling of the Supreme Court.  On Tuesday, July 17, 1787 the Continental Congress voted down what was referred to as a negative of State laws.  A negative of State laws would have put all the power of legislating laws into the hands of the Central Government.  Two Clauses in the Constitution of the United States reflect the final rulings of the day, Article II, Section VIII, Number 18 gave the power of law making to Congress only as far as the execution of the enumerated powers of Article II, Section VIII.  Article VI, Section 2 was specifically voted on that day.  This Article which is now referred to as the Supremacy Clause simply states that the Constitution and the laws of the United States made in pursuance thereof, to include Treaties made under the Authority of the United States will be the Supreme Law of the land.  I have made this argument before, this does not mean Congress can make any law it wants and call it the Supreme law of the land, it has to be a law supported by one of the enumerated powers, not preambles or introductory statements, only in accordance with the enumerated powers of Article II, Section VIII.

            All this being said, the Supreme Court; and the Department of Justice for bringing suit against Arizona were wrong.  While I have argued that possibly illegal immigration could be an argument for the Federal Government not protecting the States from invasion, the States making their own immigration law in no way oversteps the bounds of their Sovereignty nor does it interfere with any enumerated Constitutional power.

            The Supreme Court then finally released its ruling on Health Care Affordability Act.  In short they determined that it was Constitutional and that it was not a mandate but a tax.  By calling it a tax in a sense they backpedaled on their argument that they could enforce the Act by claiming that the purchasing of Health Insurance fell under the commerce clause, once again a very misused and misinterpreted enumerated power.  By calling it a tax they are placing within the 16^th Amendment, no apportionment, no census and no enumeration, in other words Congress can run amok.  The real problem with this ruling is the beast that it has unleashed.  With the belief that Case Law takes precedence over Constitutional Law the Supreme Court of the United States has just set precedence.  It will take little to no effort now for any Congress with an agenda, and the backing of limitless corporate dollars, to write a law that will require the People of the United States to purchase a particular product or service or be taxed for not doing so.

            Whether or not the right President or Congress is elected the precedence has been set.  The Supreme Court of the United States will overrule any State law they desire.  State sovereignty has been nullified in the eyes of the Central Government.  The Supreme Court has also set the precedence for the Federal Government to rule over how we may spend our hard earned income; they will decide what is best for you, so once again sovereignty has been nullified; only in this case it is personal sovereignty.  It actually pains me to write this but, welcome to the United Socialist States of America.  There are limited options open to the States and to the People.  The States can nullify Federal Laws that are not in accordance with the enumerated powers of the Constitution of the United States.  Of course this action will cause more law suits to be brought against the States by the Department of Justice.  The other is for the States to secede from the Union.  This was tried in the 1860’s, it was the correct action then and it could be the correct action now for the same reason, the Federal Government is in violation of the Contract it has between themselves and the States, it’s called the Constitution of the United States.

Steve Avery

7/1/2012