Guest Author: Danny Martinez (c)copyright 2011
_____________________________________________
“To fully understand the impact of changing the wording from navigable waters to waters of the United States one must understand the clear meaning of what “United States” means.”
________________________________________________
UNITED STATES
In April 2, 2009, S. 787 the Clean Water Restoration Act was introduced to the 111th Congress, which was a bill to amend the “Federal Water Pollution Control Act” to clarify the jurisdiction of the United States over waters of the United States. Section 1 Short Title says “This Act may be cited as the Clean Water Restoration Act.” The purpose of the Act was to (1) to reaffirm the original intent of Congress in enacting the Federal Water Pollution control Act Amendments of 1972 (Public Law 92-500; 86 Stat. 816) to restore and maintain the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the waters of the United States; and (2) to clarify define the waters of the United States that are subject to the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.)as those features that were treated as such pursuant to the final rule (including the preamble that final rule) published at 53 Fed. Reg. 20764 (June6, 1988) and 51 Fed Reg 41206 (November 13, 1986) and other applicable rules and interpretations in effect on January, 8, 2001.” [emphasis added]
This act has caused a lot of reaction from the states in regards to their sovereignty and their jurisdiction over waters within the boundaries of their respective states. This has not been diminished in any manner as Sect. 3 Findings (5) “Congress Supports the policy in effect under section 101(g) of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (33 U.S.C. 1251(g)), which states that the authority of each State to allocate quantities of water within its jurisdiction shall not be superseded, abrogated or otherwise impaired by this Act. ….” [emphasis added]
To fully understand the impact of changing the wording from navigable waters to waters of the United States one must understand the clear meaning of what “United States” means.
In 1945 the Supreme Court in Hooven & Allison Co. v. Evatt, 324 U.S. 652 (1945) defined the term “United States” as having three distinct meanings ; “The term “United States” may be used in any one of several senses. It may be merely the name of a sovereign occupying the position analogous to that of other sovereigns in the family of nations. It may designate the territory over which the sovereignty to the United States [672] extends, or it may be the collective name of the states which are united by and under the Constitution.”
The first definition of “United States” makes reference under International Law such as France, England, Spain etc.
The Second definition of “United States” makes reference to territory over which the sovereignty of the United States extends such as the 10 square miles of Washington D.C., Guam, American Virgin Islands, Puerto Rico etc. This would include any insular possession within the boundaries of the states that has been ceded to the United States in compliance with Article 1 Section 8 Clause 17 of the Constitution “To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards and other needful Buildings:
The Third definition of “United States” makes reference to the collective name of the sovereign 50 states united under international law. We are not one Central Government as we are a union of states united under the Constitution with the states granting specific and restricted enumerated powers to the agent for the states united “United States”. This is made clear in Article IV Section 3 Admission of States to the Union and Article 1 Sections 1-8 of the Constitution of the United States of America. http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/article04/16.html ; http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/article01/
The United States Code at 28 U.S.C. 1603 defines “United States” as follows: (c) The “United States” includes all territory and waters, continental or insular, subject to the jurisdiction of the United States”. This confirms the provisions of Article I Section 8 Clause 17.
In the event the jurisdictional issue is not quite understood Article I Section 8 Clause 18 grants jurisdiction only over those enumerated powers listed in Article I Section 8 such as power to coin money; power to regulate commerce between the states such as the 6 navigable waters (commerce) such as the Mississippi River, the Hudson River etc. Article I Section 8 Clause 18 is as follows “To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof”.
The tenth Amendment of the Constitution makes this very clear that unless the Constitution has granted the “United States” authority to do something it is without it “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people”. [emphasis added]
Thank you Glenn D.
Bureau of Land Mis-mangement
Do not forget the power and jurisdiction granted to the Federal government by :
(a) 304 million “contributors” via FICA,
(b) bankruptcy (1933), and
(c) State of Emergency (1933)
http://mises.org/daily/3056
Senate Report 93-549
War and Emergency Powers Acts
“A majority of the people of the United States have lived all of their lives under emergency rule. For 40 years (as of the report 1933-1973), freedoms and governmental procedures guaranteed by the Constitution have, in varying degrees, been abridged by laws brought into force by states of national emergency.”
Glenn D What does blm stand for?
Maritime law. It is the law of the land and the sea.
Capitalization. UNITED STATES…. JOE Q PUBLIC…
The issue of who is who is what is what has been so cleverly hidden in plain sight that the resulting cognitive dissonance induced if the “truth” ever came out would splinter the republic that isn’t. In fact, “citizens” are not party to the Constitution.
Please grab key phrases that make you angry. Google is your friend. What you find will shock you.
Hacking at the roots just does not cut it anymore, if you get my drift, marti-timely speaking.
The hydra is huge and has had a long time to grow.
Legal-ease is legal-difficult for good reason.
Anadianant
http://aadivaahan.wordpress.com/2011/02/16/truth-about-america-truth-about-us/
[“the United States” is the name of the federal government]
Consider the case of Ellis v. United States, 206 U.S. 246; 27 S.Ct. 600 (1907)
A Company had won the contract to dredge out Chelsea Creek which is in Boston Harbor Mass. Part of the contract called for installing pilings along the creek to prevent the creek from filling in with silt. Part of the contract rewarded a ‘Bonus’ to the company if they completed the project on time.
There was a delay in receiving some of the materials required for he job and the company was falling behind on time. When the materials arrived the Company had the men work 24 hours a day, on rotating 12 hour shifts, which was beyond the standard eight hour day.
The project was completed on time and the company won the bonus. However the workers thought that they should share in the bonus even though their contract did not entitle them to any part of the bonus.
The men filed suit and lost, but then they believed that the recently passed minimum wage law passed by Congress could be made to apply to their situation and that they should have been paid one and a half times their normal pay for every hour worked over eight hours.
This case ended up in front of the Supreme Court of the United States, and here is what the Court said.
“Congress possesses no power to legislate except such as is affirmatively conferred upon it through the Constitution, or is fairly to be inferred therefrom,”
“An act which may be constitutional upon its face, or as applied to certain conditions, may yet be found to be unconstitutional when sought to be applied in a particular case.”
The works of dredging in Chelsea Creek, in Boston harbor as shown on the record, is not part of the “public works of the United States” within the meaning of the statute in question.”
“It is unnecessary to lay special stress on the title to the soil in which the channels were dug, but it may be noticed that it was not in the United States. The language of the act is “public works of the United States.” As the works are things upon which the labor is expended, the most natural meaning of “of the United States” is “belonging to the United States.” Ellis v. United States, 206 U.S. 246; 27 S.Ct. 600 (1907)
Chelsea Creek is in Boston harbor, which is in the State of Massachusetts. The U.S. Supreme Court stated that Massachusetts is NOT IN “the United States.” And for good reason. This decision was based on law.
In effect, what the U.S. Supreme Court said is that they had no jurisdiction over the controversy. All controversies are predicated on jurisdiction. Jurisdiction, over the person, over the geographical location, and over the subject matter in controversy.
The Supreme Court had ‘jurisdiction’ over the subject matter, i.e. the “Minimum Wage Law”. However that law could ONLY be applied in the District of Columbia and other places where the federal government has jurisdiction, such as military instillations, enclaves, Territories and possessions of the United States. The Court did not have jurisdiction over Massachusetts or over the Company who had the contract to do the dredging.
Actually none of the several states are in the “United States.” Each State of the Union of States is a separate individual, sovereign, Nation.
Did you notice what the Supreme Court said about the word “of.” “Of” means belonging to. So the United States OF America means that “the United States” belongs to America. It is the property of America. America is fifty Nations united by compact for very limited reasons.
“, the most natural meaning of “of the United States” is “belonging to the United States.”
Read that again to make sure you got it in your head. Words can be confusing when we don’t pay attention to the proper use of words.
Now consider Chisom, Ex’r v. Georgia (Feb 1794)
“A State does not owe its origin to the government of the United States, in the highest or in any of its branches. It was in existence before it. It derives its authority from the same pure and sacred source as itself: The voluntary and deliberate choice of the people…. A State is altogether exempt from the jurisdiction of the Courts of the United States, or from any other exterior authority, unless in the special instances where the general Government has power derived from the Constitution itself.” P. 448
“The question to be determined is whether this State so respectable, and whose claim soars so high, is amenable to the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court of the United States? This question, important in itself, will depend on others, more important still; and may perhaps, be ultimately resolved into one, no less radical than this– “do the people of the United States form a Nation?
“By that law the several States and governments spread over our globe, are considered as forming a society, not a Nation.” Chisolm, Ex’r v. Georgia 2 Dall. 419 1 L.Ed. 440 (1794)
Then again in 1819; “No political dreamer was ever wild enough to think of breaking down the lines which separate the States, and of compounding the American people into one common mass.” M’Culloch v. The State of Maryland et al, 17 U.S. (4 Wheat.) 316; L.Ed 579 (1819)
And a Court case from Blacks Law Dictionary.
National Government: Blacks Law Dictionary 4th Edit. At Page 1176.
“The government of a whole nation as distinguished from that of a local or territorial division of the nation, and also as distinguished from that of a league or confederation.”
“A national government is a government of a people of a single state or nation, united as a community by what is termed a “social compact,” and possessing complete and perfect supremacy over persons and things, so far as they can be made the lawful objects of civil government. A federal government is distinguished from a national government, by its being the government of a community of independent and sovereign states, united by compact.” Piqua Branch Bank v. Knoup, 6 Ohio St. 393.
“The laws of Congress in respect to those matters do not extend into the territorial limits of the states, but have force only in the District of Columbia, and other places that are within the exclusive jurisdiction of the national government.”
[Caha v. United States 152 U.S. 211 (1894)]
“Legislation of Congress, unless a contrary intent appears, is meant to apply only within territorial jurisdiction of the United States.”
Foley Bros. v. Filardo, 336 U.S. 281; 69 S.Ct. 575 (1949)
19 Corpus Juris Secundum § 883
“The United States government is a foreign corporation with respect to a state.” 19 C.J.S. Corporations § 883 citing In re Merriam’s Estate, 36 N.Y. 505, 141 N.Y. 479 (1894), and affirmed in United States v. Perkins, 163 U.S. 625, 41 L.Ed. 287 (1896)
Everyone needs to read from Dr. Eduardo M. Rivera…
Much of his educational work can be found at http://www.edrivera.com
You might consider becoming a student of Ed.
See also Chapter 4 and Chapter 11 in “The Federal Zone”.
/s/ Paul Andrew Mitchell, Author and
Private Attorney General, 18 U.S.C. 1964
I think there is a genuine need for articles of this kind that show us where and what the law really is. We cannot trust the politicians or courts to preserve the law as they are by far the greatest breakers of laws of all kinds. They depend on us being ignorant of what the laws are which is how they get away with so much corruption. Thanks Mr.M. Hope to see more from you.
states should take back the land that’s been confiscated by the federal, imo.
Doesn’t this fella write for Cowboy mag? If its the same fella…..he’s a big time expert in this stuff and you need to be paying attention to what he says.
This kinda blows the blm’s arugment out of the water about how they run and control everything. Funny how all this stuff only works when the gov wants to use it against us…..the rest of the time they pretend they dont know its there.
This was a really good piece. I hope more will be coming from the guy that wrote this. we need all the factual material we can find and this one is worth printing off and keeping for reference.
In 1956, a congressional committee prepared a report entitled Jurisdiction over Federal Areas within the States. The Report examined the intent and scope of Clause 17 and stated in part:
“The debates in the Constitutional Convention are also of interest in the light they cast on the purpose of the consent requirement of clause 17. There appears to be no question but that the requirement was added simply to foreclose the possibility that a State might be destroyed by the purchase by the Federal Government of all the property within that State. Could the Federal Government acquire exclusive jurisdiction over all property purchased by it within a State, without the consent of that State, the latter would have no means of preserving its integrity.”
“It scarcely needs to be said that unless there has been a transfer of jurisdiction (1) pursuant to clause 17 by a Federal acquisition of land with State consent, or (2) by cession from the State to the Federal Government, or unless the Federal Government has reserved jurisdiction upon the admission of the State, the Federal Government possesses no legislative jurisdiction over any area within a State…”
As stated in the above and in the Report, the federal government cannot exercise legislative jurisdiction over any land, within the several States, without the consent of the legislature of that State.
By the same token, Congress cannot, by a general statute, grant the federal government jurisdiction over water that belongs to one of the United States.
Quotes from:
JURISDICTION OVER FEDERAL AREAS WITHIN THE STATES, Report of the Interdepartmental Committee for the Study of Jurisdiction over Federal Areas within the States, Part II, A Text of the Law of Legislative Jurisdiction, (Washington, DC, 1957).
[...] Ria Patel made a really though provoking post today Here is a small section of itThe Third definition of “United States” makes reference to the collective name of the sovereign 50 states united under international law. We are not one Central Government as we are a union of states united under the Constitution with … [...]
Very interesting article!