Home

Defining the “United States”

16 Comments

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which states that the authority of each State to allocate quantities of water within its jurisdiction shall not be superseded, abrogated or otherwise impaired by this Act.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.” More

No Longer Will We Stand Idly By

Leave a comment

Bookmark and Share  

by Andrew Nappi, Florida Tenth Amendment Center 

The following is based off a speech given at Nullify Now! Orlando on 10-10-10

Isn’t it incredible that, despite all the historical evidence to the contrary, that anyone can still believe that the founders would’ve fought a long, cruel, bloody war just to exchange one central, overpowering government for another? And yet, these guys sitting on the courts want to define the limits of our freedom for the extension of greater government control. That is not the founders’ legacy. That’s not why we’re here today.

For these out of touch elitists, the Bill of Rights is just a historical curiosity – it’s quaint and doesn’t mean anything. But we know that the Bill of Rights is the very essence of state sovereignty. That’s why it was created, and that wasn’t lost on the founders.

In fact, at the North Carolina ratifying convention Samuel Spencer said, “It appears to me that the state governments are not sufficiently secured and that they may be swallowed up by the great mass of powers given to congress.” Was that prophetic? Just look what we have today… More

The Fed Owns the U.S. Gov’t – The U.S. Gov’t Controls its Employees – Social Security Made Americans into Federal Employees

5 Comments

LIVE LINK: Llstulers blog

Reprinted with permission

    “Besides the sovereignty issue that the Federal Reserve had to deal with, the federal government has no jurisdiction over intrastate commerce.  Actually, this is a consequence of American sovereignty – there would be no sovereignty if the federal government could rule Americans in their commercial endeavors.  The Constitution in Article I, section 8, only grants the federal government jurisdiction “To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes”.  This is known as foreign commerce, interstate commerce, and trade with the Indians.”

________________________________________________________                                                 

 If the actions of the federal government in Washington, D.C., seem at odds with the Constitution and, as well, at odds with the general public’s views and desires, you must know that the Federal Reserve now owns the U.S. government.  Owning the U.S. government was not enough to enslave Americans due to their inherent natural-born sovereignty.  So the Federal Reserve has also created Social Security in order to destroy that sovereignty.  This is the basis of EVERYTHING that the government is doing.  By applying for a S.S.# an American entered into an employment contract.  There are no Constitutional restraints concerning the government’s own employees.  

          The Federal Reserve bankrupted the U.S. federal government in the 1930′s.  This is clearly evidenced by the law itself:  title 11, U.S.C., “Bankruptcy”, is implemented by title 11 C.F.R., “Federal Elections”.  The Federal Election Commission is charged with implementing the laws of bankruptcy.  Our elections are simply to elect a bankruptcy “administration” – the Fed is in charge, so it really doesn’t matter who gets elected.  President Obama ran his election on the “change” platform, but once elected, he increased the bailout money to the same people and increased the number of troops overseas.  Nothing has changed at all because the Fed has ordained what will be done.  Republican or Democrat, it would not have mattered who won the election.  

          The following is from the Congressional Record of March 17, 1993: 

          “It is an established fact that the United States Federal Government has been dissolved by the Emergency Banking Act, March 9, 1933, 48 Stat. 1, Public Law 89-719; declared by President Roosevelt, being bankrupt and insolvent.  H.J.R. 192, 73rd Congress session of June 5, 1933 – Joint Resolution to Suspend the Gold Standard and Abrogate the Gold Clause dissolved the Sovereign Authority of the United States and the official capacities of all United States governmental offices, officers, and departments and is further evidence that the United States Federal Government exists today in name only.” 

          As the Congressional Record states above, the gold standard could no longer be upheld.  This means that the federal government no longer could pay gold to back up the dollar – there were too many dollars in circulation.  This is bankruptcy.   

          After bankrupting the government, the Federal Reserve then moved to enslave all Americans and make them pay the interest on their (counterfeit money) loans to the government.  

          However, bankrupting the U.S. federal government wasn’t enough to make Americans pay the Fed’s interest because the American is sovereign, not the federal government.  This has been held by the Supreme Court in several decisions, such as, United States v. Lee, 106 U.S. 196, Hale v. Henkle, 201 U.S. 43, Julliard v. Greenman, 110 U.S. 421, and Chisholm v. Georgia, 2 Dall. 419.  It is expressed quite clearly within Julliard v. Greenman as follows: 

          “There is no such thing as a power of inherent Sovereignty in the government of the United States.  In this country sovereignty resides in the People, and Congress can exercise no power which they have not, by their Constitution entrusted to it:  All else is withheld.”    More

SEVERAL NATIONALLY KNOWN SPEAKERS ARE COMING TO THE STATE SOVEREIGNTY RALLY IN ALBANY NY ON AUGUST 7th

Leave a comment

SEVERAL NATIONALLY KNOWN SPEAKERS ARE COMING TO THE STATE SOVEREIGNTY RALLY IN ALBANY NY ON AUGUST 7th
  
The 10th Amendment, which is part of the Bill of Rights, states:
 
“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.” More

Marti Oakley and Barb Peterson: The Truth Squad

Leave a comment

Join us Sunday evening at 8 CST with Marti and Barb on The Truth Squad Radio Show.

Our guest this week is John Wallace, host of American Politics on blogtalk.  John has been at the forefront of the fight in New York to preserve state sovereignty against federal encroachment.  John will be discussing the upcoming August 7th rally in New York where he will be a guest speaker.  

The Truth Squad Radio Show with Marti Oakley and Barb Peterson 

Date / Time: 8/01/2010 8:00 PM

Category: Politics

Call-in Number: (917) 388-4520

URL: http://www.blogtalkradio.com/marti-oakley

Is there news in your area no one is reporting? Want to be a guest?

Give us a call on  Skype: 320-281-0585 or email us at truthsquadradio@gmail.com

A Rally Supporting the U.S. Constitution and New York State Sovereignty

Leave a comment

A Rally Supporting the U.S. Constitution and New York State Sovereignty – Albany, NY – August 7th  

 All Freedom and Liberty-loving Americans are invited to a rally in support of the U.S. Constitution and New York State Sovereignty. Many grassroots candidates from the area, many Sheriff’s from New York State and other states, Tea Party groups, Oath Keeper groups, 912 groups, Campaign for Liberty groups, We the People and many other Liberty groups will be there in support of the 9th and 10th Amendment. We are inviting all other liberty groups from New York and nearby states that would like to join New York in solidarity, with all of us coming together under the 10th Amendment with one single message for our elected and appointed officials in both Washington and Albany: 

“OBEY THE CONSTITUTION!”
When: Saturday, August 7, 2010 12:00 PM 

Where:
State Capitol Building
Eagle Street & State St
Albany, NY 12207 

A RALLY OF THE PEOPLE: More

Arizona legal defense fund

5 Comments

Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer is taking a novel approach to defending the state’s controversial new immigration law: She’s set up a website to solicit donations for a legal defense fund.

The site, www.keepazsafe.com, asks supporters of the law to contribute to its defense. Brewer, a Republican, created a separate fund in May to pay for outside legal counsel for the law, which has already been challenged by opponents.

“It’s amazing to see just how many folks across the country are supportive,” Brewer said in a statement. “The pouring in of hundreds of unsolicited donations since the end of April, speaks volumes about how important securing our border is to citizens across America.”

The law, enacted in April, requires a police officer to determine a person’s immigration status if they are stopped, detained or arrested and there is “reasonable suspicion” they are in the country illegally. Opponents have argued that the law could lead to profiling.

One question the website doesn’t answer: Whether a donation to the defense fund can be written off for tax purposes. “The State of Arizona provides no opinion as to whether donations to the Border Security and Immigration Legal Defense fund are deductible for federal income tax purposes,” the site reads. “A donor may wish to consult a tax professional for advice.”

(Posted by John Fritze)

%d bloggers like this: