SOURCE:
Federal and State Withholding Options for Private Employers, section
12, ver. 1.81
1. Definitions
The purpose of establishing
government is solely to provide “protection”. Those who wish to be
protected by a specific government must expressly consent to be protected
by choosing a domicile within the civil jurisdiction of that specific
government.
-
Those who have made such a choice and thereby become
“customers” of the protection afforded by government are called
by any of the following names under the civil laws of the
jurisdiction they have nominated to protect them:
1.1
“citizens”, if they were born somewhere within the country
which the jurisdiction is a part.
1.2 “residents” (aliens)
if they were born within the country in which the jurisdiction is a
part
1.3 "inhabitants", which
encompasses both "citizens", and "residents" but excludes foreigners
1.4 "persons".
1.5 "individuals".
-
Those who have not
become “customers” or “protected persons” of a specific government are
called by any of the following names within the civil laws of the
jurisdiction they have refused to nominate as their protector and
may NOT be called by any of the names in item 1 above:
2.1 “nonresidents”
2.2 “transient foreigners”
2.3 "stateless
persons"
2.4 "in transitu"
2.5 "transient"
2.6 "sojourner"
In law, the process of
choosing a domicile within the jurisdiction of a specific government is
called “animus manendi”. That choice makes you a consenting
party to the “civil contract”, “social compact”, and “private law” that
attaches to and therefore protects all “inhabitants” and things
physically situated on or within that specific territory, venue, and
jurisdiction. In a sense then, your consent to a specific jurisdiction
by your choice of domicile within that jurisdiction is what creates the
"person", "individual", "citizen", "resident", or "inhabitant" which is
the only proper subject of the civil laws passed by that government. In
other words, choosing a domicile within a specific jurisdiction causes
an implied waiver of sovereign immunity, because the courts admit that
the term "person" does not refer to the "sovereign":
“Since in common usage, the term person does not include the
sovereign, statutes not employing the phrase are ordinarily
construed to exclude it.”
[United States v. Cooper Corporation, 312 U.S. 600 (1941)]
“Sovereignty itself is, of course, not
subject to law for it is the author and source of law;”
[Yick Wo v. Hopkins, 118 U.S. 356 (1886)]
“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.”
[Juilliard v. Greenman, 110 U.S. 421 (1884)]
Those who have become customers of
government protection by
choosing a domicile within a specific government then owe a duty to pay
for the support of the protection they demand. The method of paying for
said protection is called “taxes”. In earlier times this kind of
sponsorship was called “tribute”.
Both state and federal income
taxation is based almost entirely upon what is called “domicile”.
Domicile is a choice we make that requires our consent and
participation, and because it requires our consent, then becoming a
“taxpayer” who owes a tax requires our consent. We will explain
this shortly. An examination of the Internal Revenue Code and
implementing regulations confirms that there are only two proper legal
“persons” who are the subject of the I.R.C., and that these two
“persons” have a “domicile” in the District of Columbia.
By “District of Columbia” as used in this document, we mean the
government of the “United States” and not the District of Columbia in
the geographical sense as used in 26 U.S.C. §7701(a)(10):
Table 3: Taxable persons under I.R.C.
|
# |
Proper
legal
person? |
Tax status |
Place of inhabitance |
Declared domicile |
Conditions under which subject to I.R.C. (if they
volunteer)? |
Notes |
|
1 |
Yes |
“citizen” |
District of
Columbia |
District of
Columbia |
Earnings
connected with a “trade or business” within the District of
Columbia while abroad. |
File using
IRS Form 2555. See 26 CFR §1.1-1(c )for imposition of tax.
“citizens” living abroad and outside of federal jurisdiction are
referred to as “nationals” but not “citizens” under 8 U.S.C.
§1101(a)(22)(B). |
|
2 |
Yes |
“resident” |
District of
Columbia |
District of
Columbia |
All income
earned within the District of Columbia connected with a “trade
or business” |
See 26 CFR
§1.1-1(c ) for imposition of tax. See 26 U.S.C. §7701(b)(1)(A)
for definition of “resident” |
|
3 |
No |
“nonresident
alien” |
Outside of
District of Columbia |
Foreign
country, including states of the Union |
Income from
within the District of Columbia under
26 U.S.C. §871. |
File using
form 1040NR. See 26 U.S.C. §871 for taxable sources.
26 U.S.C. §7701(b)(1)(B) for definition of “nonresident
alien” |
|
4 |
No |
“alien” |
District of
Columbia |
Foreign
country, including states of the Union |
Only subject
to income taxes on “income” from foreign country connected with
a “trade or business” and coming under an income tax treaty with
the foreign country. |
Do not
file. Not subject to the I.R.C. because not domiciled in the
District of Columbia |
Options 1 and 2 above have “domicile” within the
District of Columbia as a prerequisite. People born in and domiciled
within states of the Union fall under status 3. If “nationals” (who are
not “citizens” under
8 U.S.C. §1401) living in states have no earnings
from the District of Columbia, then even if they choose to volunteer,
they cannot be “liable” to pay any of their earnings to the IRS. Note
also that the “aliens” mentioned in option 4 above, even if they live in
the District of Columbia, are not even mentioned in the I.R.C. They
only become subject to the code by either becoming involved in a "trade
or business", which is a public office, which is a voluntary activity
involving federal contracts and employment, or by declaring the District of Columbia to be
their legal “domicile”. Making the District of Columbia into their
“domicile” or engaging in a "trade or business" (which is
defined as a public office) are the only two activities that can transform “aliens” into “residents”
subject to the Internal Revenue Code.
“Aliens” or “nonresident
aliens” may voluntarily elect (choose) to treat the District of Columbia
as their domicile and thereby become “residents” in accordance with the
following authorities:
1.
26 U.S.C. §6013(g) or (h).
2.
26 U.S.C. §7701(b)(4)(B).
3.
26 CFR §1.871-1(a).
4.
The Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act, 28 U.S.C.
§1605(a)(2), which says that those who conduct “commerce” within the
legislative jurisdiction of the United States (in the federal zone)
surrender their sovereign immunity.
TITLE 28 >
PART IV >
CHAPTER 97 > § 1605
§ 1605. General exceptions to the jurisdictional immunity of a
foreign state
(a) A foreign state shall not be immune
from the jurisdiction of courts of the United States or of
the States in any case—
(2) in which
the action is based upon a commercial activity carried on in the
United States by the foreign state; or upon an act performed in the
United States in connection with a commercial activity of the
foreign state elsewhere; or upon an act outside the territory of the
United States in connection with a commercial activity of the
foreign state elsewhere and that act causes a direct effect in the
United States;
We also
caution that a “nonresident alien” can also unwittingly become a “U.S.
person” with an effective domicile in the District of Columbia by incorrectly
declaring his or her citizenship status on a government form as that of
either a statutory “U.S. citizen” under
8 U.S.C. §1401 or a statutory “resident alien” under
26 U.S.C. §7701(b)(1)(A) , instead of a “national” but not a citizen
under
8 U.S.C. §1101(a)(21) and
8 U.S.C. §1452. This results in a
surrender of sovereign immunity under
28 U.S.C. §1603(b)(3), which says that “U.S. citizens” and
“residents” may not be treated as “foreign states”. This is by far
the most frequent mechanism that your unscrupulous government uses to
maliciously destroy the sovereignty of persons in states of the Union
and undermine the
Separation of Powers Doctrine: Using ambiguous terms on government
forms and creating and exploiting legal ignorance of the people. This
process by public servants of systematically and illegally destroying
the separation of powers is thoroughly documented below:
Domicile is legally defined as follows. We also
include the definition of “situs” to help clarify its meaning:
"domicile.
A person's legal home. That place where a man has his true,
fixed, and permanent home and principal establishment, and to
which whenever he is absent he has the intention of
returning. Smith v. Smith, 206 Pa.Super. 310m 213 A.2d 94.
Generally, physical presence within a state and the intention
to make it one's home are the requisites of establishing a
"domicile" therein. The permanent residence of a person or the
place to which he intends to return even though he may
actually reside elsewhere. A person may have more than one
residence but only one domicile. The legal domicile of a
person is important since it, rather than the actual residence,
often controls the jurisdiction of the taxing authorities and
determines where a person may exercise the privilege of voting and
other legal rights and privileges."
[Black's Law Dictionary,
Sixth Edition, p. 485]
__________________________________________________________________________________________
"Situs.
Lat. Situation; location; e.g. location or place of crime or
business. Site; position; the place where a thing is considered,
for example, with reference to jurisdiction over it, or the right or
power to tax it. It imports fixedness of location. Situs of
property, for tax purposes, is determined by whether the taxing
state has sufficient contact with the personal property sought to be
taxed to justify in fairness the particular tax. Town of Cady v.
Alexander Const. Co., 12 Wis.2d 236, 107 N.W.2d 267, 270."
Generally,
personal property has its taxable "situs" in that state where owner of
it is domiciled. Smith v. Lummus, 149 Fla. 660, 6 So.2d 625, 627, 628.
Situs of a trust means place of performance of active duties of
trustee. Campbell v. Albers, 313 Ill.App. 152, 39 N.E.2d 672, 676."
[Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition, p. 1387]
Notice in the definition of
"domicile" above the absence of the word "consent" and replacing it with
the word "intent" to disguise the true nature of what they are saying.
Lawyers and politicians don't want you to know that they need your
consent to make you into a "taxpayer" with a "domicile" within their
jurisdiction, even though this is in fact the case. More on this
later.
An exhaustive academic
treatise on the subject of domicile also candidly admits that there is
no all encompassing definition for "domicile".
§57.
Difficulty of Defining Domicil.--The difficulty, if not
impossibility, of arriving at an entirely satisfactory definition of
domicile has been frequently commented upon. Lord
Alvanley, in Somerville v. Somerville, praised the wisdom of
Bynkershoek in not hazarding a definition; and Dr. Lushington, in
Maltass v. Maltass, speaking of the various attempts of jurists in
this direction, considered himself justified in the remarkable
language of Hertius: "Verum in iis definiendis mirum est quam sudant
doctores." Lord Chelmsford, speaking, as late as 1863, in the
case of Moorhouse v. Lord, says: "The difficulty of getting a
satisfactory definition of domicil, which will meet every case, has
often been admitted, and every attempt to frame one has hitherto
failed."
[Treatise on the Law of Domicil, §57, pp. 93-98;M.W. Jacobs, 1887;
Little Brown and Company
SOURCE:
http://books.google.com/books?id=MFQvAAAAIAAJ&printsec=titlepage]
The above admission is not
surprising, given the fact that the main purpose for inventing the
concept of domicile is to infer or imply consent of the subject to the
civil law that has never expressly been given in writing and cannot be
proven to exist. No government or judge is going to give a
definition, because then people would use that definition to prove that
they DON'T have a domicile and that would destroy the source of all the
government's civil and taxing authority over the people who employ the
definition to break the chains that bind them to their pagan tyrant
rulers.
The concept of domicile we
inherit primarily from the feudal Roman law system in which the king or
emperor or lord claimed ownership over all territory entrusted to him or
her by divine right. Everyone occupying said territory therefore
became a "subject" of the king and owed him "allegiance" as compensation
for the "privilege" or franchise associated with use of his property.
That allegiance expressed itself as "tribute" paid to the king, which we
know of today as "taxes". What were once "subjects" of the king in
Great Britain and the Roman Empire are now called "citizens", and we
fired the King when the Declaration of Independence declared all men
equal. At that point, everyone became equal and the sovereign
transitioned from the former King of England to "We the People" as
individuals. Consequently, we no longer have a landlord and the
government that serves us cannot therefore lawfully charge us "rent" for
the use of the land or territory that we occupy if we own it.
"The people of
this State, as the successors of its former sovereign, are entitled
to all the rights which formerly belonged to the King by his
prerogative. Through the medium of their Legislature they may
exercise all the powers which previous to the Revolution could have
been exercised either by the King alone, or by him in
conjunction with his Parliament; subject only to those restrictions
which have been imposed by the Constitution of this State or of the
U.S."
[Lansing v. Smith, 21 D. 89., 4 Wendel 9 (1829) (New York)]
"In the United
States the people are sovereign, and the government cannot sever its
relationship to the people by taking away their citizenship."
[Afroyim v. Rusk, 387 US 253 (1967)]
"Strictly speaking, in our republican form of government, the
absolute sovereignty of the nation is in the people of the nation;
and the residuary sovereignty of each state, not granted to any of
its public functionaries, is in
the people of the state.
2 Dall. 471"
[Bouv.
Law Dict (1870)]
"The sovereignty of a
state does not reside in the persons who fill the different
departments of its government, but in the People, from whom the
government emanated; and they may change it at their discretion.
Sovereignty, then in this country, abides with the constituency, and
not with the agent; and this remark is true, both in reference to
the federal and state government."
[Spooner v. McConnell, 22 F. 939 @ 943]
"In Europe, the
Executive is almost synonymous with the Sovereign power of a State;
and, generally, includes legislative and judicial authority. When,
therefore, writers speak of the sovereign, it is not necessarily in
exclusion of the judiciary; and it will often be found, that when
the Executive affords a remedy for any wrong, it is nothing more
than by an exercise of its judicial authority. Such is
the condition of power in that quarter of the world, where it is too
commonly acquired by force, or fraud, or both, and seldom by
compact. In America, however, the case is widely different.
Our government is founded upon compact. Sovereignty
was, and is, in the people. It was entrusted by them, as
far as was necessary for the purpose of forming a good government,
to the Federal Convention; and the Convention executed their trust,
by effectually separating the Legislative, Judicial, and Executive
powers; which, in the contemplation of our Constitution, are each a
branch of the sovereignty. The well-being of the whole depends upon
keeping each department within its limits."
[Glass v. Sloop Betsey, 3 U.S. 6, 3 Dall. 6, 1 L.Ed. 485 (1794)]
The U.S. Supreme Court
describes the relationship of domicile to taxation as follows:
"Thus, the Court has frequently
held that domicile or residence, more substantial than mere presence
in transit or sojourn, is an adequate basis for taxation, including
income, property, and death taxes. Since the Fourteenth
Amendment makes one a citizen of the state wherein he resides,
the fact of residence creates universally reciprocal duties of
protection by the state and of allegiance and support by the
citizen. The latter obviously includes a duty to pay taxes, and
their nature and measure is largely a political matter. Of
course, the situs of property may tax it regardless of the
citizenship, domicile, or residence of the owner, the most obvious
illustration being a tax on realty laid by the state in which the
realty is located."
[Miller Brothers Co. v. Maryland,
347 U.S. 340 (1954)]
“This right to protect persons having a
domicile, though not native-born or naturalized citizens, rests on
the firm foundation of justice, and the claim to be protected is
earned by considerations which the protecting power is not at
liberty to disregard. Such domiciled citizen pays the
same price for his protection as native-born or naturalized citizens
pay for theirs. He is under the bonds of allegiance to the country
of his residence, and, if he breaks them, incurs the same
penalties. He owes the same obedience to the civil laws.
His property is, in the same way and to the same extent as
theirs, liable to contribute to the support of the Government. In
nearly all respects, his and their condition as to the duties and
burdens of Government are undistinguishable.”
[Fong Yue Ting v.
United States,
149 U.S. 698 (1893)]
The first thing to notice
about the above ruling is that the essence of being a “citizen” is one’s
domicile, not just their place of birth or naturalization. The U.S.
Supreme Court admitted that an alien with a domicile in a place is
treated as a native or naturalized “citizen” in nearly every respect.
Note also the key role of the word “intention” within the meaning of
domicile. A person can have many “abodes”, which are the place they
temporarily “inhabit”, but only one legal “domicile”. You cannot have a
legal “domicile” in a place without also having an intention (also
called “consent”) to live there “permanently”, which implies allegiance
to the people and the laws of that place.
“Allegiance and protection [by the
government from harm] are, in this connection, reciprocal
obligations. The one is a compensation for the other; allegiance for
protection and protection for allegiance.”
[Minor v.
Happersett,
88 U.S. (21 Wall.) 162, 166-168 (1874)]
What the supreme Court essentially is describing
above is a contract to procure the civil protection of a specific
government, and it is giving that contract a name called “domicile”.
What makes the contract binding is the fact that each party to the
contract both gives and receives specific and measurable
“consideration”. You give “allegiance” and the support (e.g. “taxes”)
that go with that allegiance, and in return, the government has an
implied legal duty to protect and serve you. All contracts require both
mutual consent and mutual consideration. Without both
demonstrated elements, the contract is unenforceable. The contract is
therefore only enforceable if both parties incur reciprocal duties that
are enforceable in court as “rights”.
Now let's look at the
domicile “protection contract” or “protection franchise”. Does it meet
all the requisite legal elements of a legally enforceable contract? In
fact, after you declare your exclusive allegiance to the “state” by
declaring a “domicile” within that state so that you can procure
“protection”, ironically, the courts continue to forcefully insist that
your public SERVANTS STILL have NO LEGAL OBLIGATION to protect you!
This is what Franklin Delano Roosevelt, the traitor, calls “The New
Deal”, and what we call “The RAW Deal”. Below is the AMAZING truth
right from the horse’s mouth, the courts, proving that police officers
cannot be sued if they fail to come to your aid after you call them when
you have a legitimate need for their protection:
Consequently, the “protection contract” is unenforceable as a duty upon
you because it imposes no reciprocal duty upon the government. On the
one hand, the government throws people in jail for failing to pay for
protection in the form of “taxes”, while on the other hand, it refuses
to prosecute police officers for failing to provide the protection that
was paid for, even though their willful or negligent refusal to protect
us could have far more injurious and immediate effects than simply
failing to pay for protection. This is a violation of the equal
protection of the laws. If it is a crime to not pay for protection,
then it ought to equally be a crime to not provide it! Who would want
to live in a country or be part of a “state” that would condone such
hypocrisy? That is why we advocate “divorcing the state”. It is
precisely this type of hypocrisy that explains why prominent authorities
will tell you that taxes are not “contractual”: because the courts
treat it like a contract and a criminal matter to not pay taxes for
“taxpayers”, but refuse to hold public servants equally liable for their
half of the bargain, which is protection:
"A tax is not regarded
as a debt in the ordinary sense of that term, for the reason that a
tax does not depend upon the consent of the taxpayer and there is no
express or implied contract to pay taxes. Taxes are not contracts
between party and party, either express or implied; but they are the
positive acts of the government, through its various agents, binding
upon the inhabitants, and to the making and enforcing of which their
personal consent individually is not required."
[Cooley, Law of Taxation,
4th Ed., pgs 88-89]
The above is a deception at
best and a LIE at worst. A “taxpayer” is legally defined as a person
liable, and it is true that for such a person, taxes are not
consensual or in any way "voluntary". HOWEVER, the choice about whether one wishes to BECOME a
“taxpayer” as legally defined in 26 U.S.C. §7701(a)(14) is based on domicile
and the excise taxable activities one voluntarily engages in, both of
which in fact ARE voluntary
actions and choices. By their careful choice of words, they have misrepresented the
truth so they could get into your pocket. What else would you expect of
greedy LIARS, I mean “lawyers”? We would also like to
take this opportunity to clarify for whom taxes are "voluntary" in order
to further clarify the title of this document:
-
Income taxes under I.R.C. Subtitle A are not voluntary for
"taxpayers".
-
Income taxes under I.R.C. Subtitle A are not voluntary for
everyone, because some subset of everyone are "taxpayers".
-
Income taxes under I.R.C. Subtitle A are voluntary for those
who are "nontaxpayers", who we define here as those persons who are
NOT the "taxpayer" defined in 26 U.S.C.
§§7701(a)(14) and 1313.
“Revenue Laws relate to taxpayers [officers, employees,
instrumentalities, and elected officials of the Federal
Government] and not to non-taxpayers [American Citizens/American
Nationals not subject to the exclusive jurisdiction of the
Federal Government]. The latter are without their scope. No
procedures are prescribed for non-taxpayers and no attempt is
made to annul any of their Rights or Remedies in due course of
law. With them [non-taxpayers] Congress does not assume to deal
and they are neither of the subject nor of the object of federal
revenue laws.”
[Economy Plumbing & Heating v. U.S., 470 F2d. 585 (1972)]
Some other points to
consider about this “Raw Deal” scam:
1.
You can’t be a “citizen” or a “resident” without having a legally
enforceable right to protection.
2.
Since the government won’t enforce the rendering of the ONLY
consideration required to make you a “citizen” or a “resident”, then the
protection contract is unenforceable and technically, you can’t lawfully
therefore call yourself a “citizen”.
3.
Since you can’t be a member of a “state” without being a “citizen”, then
technically, there is no de jure “state”, no de jure government that
serves this “state”, and no “United States”. It’s just “US”, friends,
cause there ain’t no “U.S.”!
4.
The implication is that your government has legally abandoned you and
you are an orphan, because they didn’t complete their half of the
protection contract bargain. Without a government, God is back in
charge. The Bible says He owns the earth anyway, which leaves us as
“nonresidents” and “transient foreigners” in respect to any jurisdiction
that claims to be a “government” because we know they’re lying.
5.
The Bible says of this “Raw Deal” the following: You've been HAD,
folks!
For thus
says the LORD: “ You have sold yourselves for nothing, And you shall
be redeemed without money.”
[Isaiah
52:3, Bible, NKJV]
The U.S.
Supreme Court has also held that “allegiance” is completely incompatible with any
system of “citizenship” in a republican form of government, and that it
is “repulsive”. Ironically, allegiance is exactly what we currently
base our system of citizenship on in this country. Apparently, this is
yet one more symptom that our government has become corrupted.
“Yet, it is to be
remembered, and that whether in its real origin, or in its
artificial state, allegiance, as well as fealty, rests upon lands,
and it is due to persons. Not so, with respect to Citizenship, which
has arisen from the dissolution of the feudal system and is a
substitute for allegiance, corresponding with the new order of
things. Allegiance and citizenship, differ, indeed, in almost
every characteristic. Citizenship is the effect of compact
[CONTRACT!]; allegiance is the offspring of power and necessity.
Citizenship is a political tie; allegiance is a territorial tenure.
Citizenship is the charter of equality; allegiance is a badge of
inferiority. Citizenship is constitutional; allegiance is personal.
Citizenship is freedom; allegiance is servitude. Citizenship is
communicable; allegiance is repulsive. Citizenship may be
relinquished; allegiance is perpetual. With such essential
differences, the doctrine of allegiance is inapplicable to a system
of citizenship; which it can neither serve to controul, nor to
elucidate. And yet, even among the nations, in which the law
of allegiance is the most firmly established, the law most
pertinaciously enforced, there are striking deviations that
demonstrate the invincible power of truth, and the homage, which,
under every modification of government, must be paid to the inherent
rights of man…..The doctrine is, that allegiance cannot be due
to two sovereigns; and taking an oath of allegiance to a new, is the
strongest evidence of withdrawing allegiance from a previous,
sovereign….”
[Talbot v. Janson, 3 U.S.
133 (1795)]
Consequently, we must conclude that allegiance to anything but God is
therefore to be avoided at all costs. Notice also that they say that
citizenship is the effect of “compact”, which is a type of contract. If
“domicile” is the basis of citizenship, and citizenship is the effect of
“compact”, then “domicile” amounts to the equivalent of a “contract”.
This leads us right back to the conclusion that the voluntary choice of
one’s “domicile” is a “contract” to procure man-made protection and fire
God as our protector:
“Compact,
n. An agreement or contract between persons, nations, or states.
Commonly applied to working agreements between and among states
concerning matters of mutual concern. A contract between parties,
which creates obligations and rights capable of being enforced and
contemplated as such between the parties, in their distinct and
independent characters. A mutual consent of parties concerned
respecting some property or right that is the object of the
stipulation, or something that is to be done or forborne. See also
Compact clause; Confederacy; Interstate compact; Treaty.”
[Black’s Law Dictionary,
Sixth Edition, p. 281]
The Bible is consistent with
the Supreme Court above in its disdain for “allegiance”. It has a name
for those expressing "allegiance": It is called an "oath". When a
person becomes a naturalized citizen of the United States, he must by
law (see
8 U.S.C. 1448) take an “oath” of "allegiance" and be "sworn in".
When a person signs an income tax return, he must swear a perjury oath.
Jesus, on the other hand, commanded believers not to take "oaths" to
anything but God, and especially not to earthly Kings, and said that
doing otherwise was essentially Satanic:
"Again you have
heard that it was said to those of old, "You shall not swear
falsely, but shall perform your oaths to the Lord.' But I say
to you, do not swear at all: neither by heaven, for it is God's
throne; nor by the earth, for it is His footstool; nor by Jerusalem,
for it is the city of the great King. Nor shall you swear by
your head, because you cannot make one hair white or black. But let
your "Yes' be "Yes,' and your "No,' "No.' For whatever is more
than these is from the evil one [Satan]."
[Matt.
5:33-37, Bible, NKJV]
God also commanded us to take
oaths ONLY in His name and no others:
"You shall fear
the LORD your God and serve [only] Him, and shall take oaths
in His name."
[Deut.
6:13, Bible, NKJV]
"If a man makes
a vow to the LORD, or swears an oath to bind himself by some
agreement, he shall not break his word; he shall do according to all
that proceeds out of his mouth."
[Numbers
30:2, Bible, NKJV]
Israel's first King, Saul, in
fact, distressed the people because one of his first official acts was
to try to put the people under oath to him instead of God.
"And the men of
Israel were distressed that day, for Saul had placed the people
under oath"
[1
Sam. 14:24, Bible, NKJV]
God's
response to the Israelites electing a King/protector to whom they would
owe "allegiance", in fact, was to say that they sinned:
Then all the elders of Israel gathered together
and came to Samuel at Ramah, and said to him, "Look, you are old,
and your sons do not walk in your ways. Now make us a king to
judge us like all the nations [and be OVER them]".
But the thing displeased Samuel when they said,
"Give us a king to judge us." So Samuel prayed to the
Lord. And the Lord said to Samuel, "Heed the voice of the
people in all that they say to you; for they have rejected Me [God], that
I should not reign over them. According to all the works
which they have done since the day that I brought them up out of
Egypt, even to this day—with which they have forsaken Me and
served other gods [Kings, in this case]—so they are doing to you
also [government becoming idolatry]. Now therefore, heed
their voice. However, you shall solemnly forewarn them, and
show them the behavior of the king who will reign over them."
So
Samuel told all the words of the LORD to the people who asked him
for a king. And he said, “This will be the behavior of the
king who will reign over you: He will take [STEAL] your sons and
appoint them for his own chariots and to be his horsemen, and some
will run before his chariots. He will appoint captains over his
thousands and captains over his fifties, will set some to plow his
ground and reap his harvest, and some to make his weapons of war and
equipment for his chariots. He will take [STEAL] your daughters to
be perfumers, cooks, and bakers. And he will take [STEAL] the best
of your fields, your vineyards, and your olive groves, and give them
to his servants. He will take [STEAL] a tenth of your grain and your
vintage, and give it to his officers and servants. And he will take
[STEAL] your male servants, your female servants, your finest young
men, and your donkeys, and put them to his work [as SLAVES]. He will
take [STEAL] a tenth of your sheep. And you will be his servants.
And you will cry out in that day because of your king whom you have
chosen for yourselves, and the LORD will not hear you in that day.”
Nevertheless the people refused to obey the
voice of Samuel; and they said, “No, but we will have a king over
us, 20 that we also may be like all the
nations, and that our king may judge us and go out before us and
fight our battles.”
[1
Sam. 8:4-20, Bible, NKJV]
Notice above the words "He
[the new King] will take...". God is really warning them here that
the King they elect will STEAL from them, which is exactly what our
present day government does! Some things never change, do they?
Another very important observation is in order at
this point, which is that our choice of "domicile" is a strictly
political and not legal matter. It is a matter of
our political choice and affiliation. The Supreme Court
has ruled that no government may dictate our choice of political
affiliations, as revealed in the American Jurisprudence Legal
Encyclopedia:
“The right to associate or not to associate with
others solely on the basis of individual choice, not being
absolute,
[1]
may conflict with a societal interest in requiring one to associate
with others, or to prohibit one from associating with others, in
order to accomplish what the state deems to be the common good.
The Supreme Court, though rarely called upon to examine this
aspect of the right to freedom of association, has nevertheless
established certain basic rules which will cover many situations
involving forced or prohibited associations. Thus, where a
sufficiently compelling state interest, outside the political
spectrum, can be accomplished only by requiring individuals to
associate together for the common good, then such forced association
is constitutional.
[2]
But the Supreme Court has made it clear that compelling an
individual to become a member of an organization with political
aspects, or compelling an individual to become a member of an
organization which financially supports, in more than an
insignificant way, political personages or goals which the
individual does not wish to support, is an infringement of the
individual's constitutional right to freedom of association.
[3]
The First Amendment prevents the government, except in the most
compelling circumstances, from wielding its power to interfere with
its employees' freedom to believe and associate, or to not believe
and not associate; it is not merely a tenure provision that protects
public employees from actual or constructive discharge.
[4]
Thus, First Amendment principles prohibit a state from compelling
any individual to associate with a political party, as a condition
of retaining public employment.
[5]
The First Amendment protects nonpolicymaking public employees from
discrimination based on their political beliefs or affiliation. [6]
But the First Amendment protects the right of political party
members to advocate that a specific person be elected or appointed
to a particular office and that a specific person be hired to
perform a governmental function.
[7]
In the First Amendment context, the political patronage exception to
the First Amendment protection for public employees is to be
construed broadly, so as presumptively to encompass positions placed
by legislature outside of "merit" civil service. Positions
specifically named in relevant federal, state, county, or municipal
laws to which discretionary authority with respect to enforcement of
that law or carrying out of some other policy of political concern
is granted, such as a secretary of state given statutory authority
over various state corporation law practices, fall within the
political patronage exception to First Amendment protection of
public employees.
[8]
However, a supposed interest in ensuring effective government and
efficient government employees, political affiliation or loyalty, or
high salaries paid to the employees in question should not be
counted as indicative of positions that require a particular party
affiliation.
[9]”
[American Jurisprudence 2d, Constitutional law,
§546: Forced and Prohibited Associations ]
One’s choice of "domicile" certainly has
far-reaching legal consequences and ramifications, but our choice of
domicile is not a legal matter to be decided by any court. No court
whether it be a federal or state court, has jurisdiction over
strictly political matters. Below is what the U.S. Supreme
Court has to say on this very subject:
"But,
fortunately for our freedom from political excitements in judicial
duties, this court [the U.S. Supreme Court] can never with
propriety be called on officially to be the umpire in questions
merely political. The adjustment of these questions belongs to
the people and their political representatives, either in the State
or general government. These questions relate to matters not to
be settled on strict legal principles. They are adjusted
rather by inclination, or prejudice or compromise, often.
[. . .]
Another
evil, alarming and little foreseen, involved in regarding these as
questions for the final arbitrament of judges would be that, in such
an event, all political privileges and rights would, in a dispute
among the people, depend on our decision finally. We would possess
the power to decide against, as well as for, them, and, under a
prejudiced or arbitrary judiciary, the public liberties and popular
privileges might thus be much perverted, if not entirely prostrated.
But, allowing the people to make constitutions and unmake them,
allowing their representatives to make laws and unmake them, and
without our interference as to their principles or policy in doing
it, yet, when constitutions and laws are made and put in force by
others, then the courts, as empowered by the State or the Union,
commence their functions and may decide on the rights which
conflicting parties can legally set up under them, rather than about
their formation itself. Our power begins after theirs [the
Sovereign People] ends. Constitutions and laws precede the
judiciary, and we act only under and after them, and as to disputed
rights beneath them, rather than disputed points in making them.
We speak what is the law, jus dicere, we speak
or construe what is the constitution, after both are made, but we
make, or revise, or control neither.
The disputed rights beneath
constitutions already made are to be governed by precedents, by
sound legal principles, by positive legislation [e.g.
"positive
law"], clear contracts,
moral duties, and fixed rules; they are per se questions of law, and
are well suited to the education and habits of the bench.
But the other disputed points in making constitutions, depending
often, as before shown, on policy, inclination, popular resolves and
popular will and arising not in respect to private rights, not what
is meum and tuum, but in relation to politics, they belong to
politics, and they are settled by political tribunals, and are too
dear to a people bred in the school of Sydney and Russel for them
ever to intrust their final decision, when disputed, to a class of
men who are so far removed from them as the judiciary, a class also
who might decide them erroneously, as well as right, and if in the
former way, the consequences might not be able to be averted
except by a revolution, while a wrong decision by a political forum
can often be peacefully corrected by new elections or instructions
in a single month; and if the people, in the distribution of powers
under the constitution, should ever think of making judges supreme
arbiters in political controversies when not selected by nor,
frequently, amenable to them nor at liberty to follow such various
considerations in their judgments as [48 U.S. 53] belong to mere
political questions, they will dethrone themselves and lose one of
their own invaluable birthrights; building up in this way -- slowly,
but surely -- a new sovereign power in the republic, in most
respects irresponsible and unchangeable for life, and one more
dangerous, in theory at least, than the worst elective oligarchy in
the worst of times. Again,
instead of controlling the people in political affairs,
the judiciary in our system was designed
rather to control individuals, on the one hand, when encroaching, or
to defend them, on the other, under the Constitution and the laws,
when they are encroached upon. And if the judiciary
at times seems to fill the important station of a check in the
government, it is rather a check on the legislature, who may attempt
to pass laws contrary to the Constitution, or on the executive, who
may violate both the laws and Constitution, than on the people
themselves in their primary capacity as makers and amenders of
constitutions."
[Luther v. Borden,
48 U.S. 1 (1849)]
Consequently, no court of law
can interfere with your choice of legal domicile, which is a strictly
political matter. To do otherwise would constitute compelled
association in violation of the First Amendment as well as direct
interference in the affairs of a political party, which is YOU.
You are your own independent political party and a sovereignty separate
and distinct from the federal or state sovereignties. A court of
law is certainly not the proper forum, for instance, in
which to question or politically ridicule one's choice of domicile,
whether it be in front of a jury or a judge.
"Petitioners
contend that immunity from suit in federal court suffices to
preserve the dignity of the States. Private suits against
nonconsenting States, however, present "the indignity of subjecting
a State to the coercive process of judicial tribunals at the
instance of private parties," In re Ayers, supra,
at 505; accord, Seminole Tribe,
517 U. S., at 58 , regardless of the forum. Not only must a
State defend or default but also it must face the prospect of being
thrust, by federal fiat and against its will, into the disfavored
status of a debtor, subject to the power of private citizens to levy
on its treasury or perhaps even government buildings or property
which the State administers on the public's behalf.
[. . .]
"Underlying
constitutional form are considerations of great substance.
Private suits against nonconsenting States--especially suits for
money damages--may threaten the financial integrity of the States.
It is indisputable that, at the time of the founding, many of the
States could have been forced into insolvency but for their immunity
from private suits for money damages. Even today, an unlimited
congressional power to authorize suits in state court to levy upon
the treasuries of the States for compensatory damages, attorney's
fees, and even punitive damages could create staggering burdens,
giving Congress a power and a leverage over the States that is not
contemplated by our constitutional design. The potential national
power would pose a severe and notorious danger to the States and
their resources. "
[Alden v. Maine,
527 U.S. 706 (1999)]
The Supreme Court said that
the sovereignty of We The People is every bit as sacred as that of the
states, so why should they not merit the same level of sovereign immunity
from suit and dignity, especially in their choice of domicile, as that of the
States? To wit:
“The rights of individuals and the justice
due to them, are as dear and precious as those of states.
Indeed the latter are founded upon the former; and the great end and
object of them must be to secure and support the rights of
individuals, or else vain is government.”
[Chisholm v. Georgia, 2 U.S. (2 Dall.) 419, 1 L.Ed 440 (1793)]
“We The People” certainly
cannot be “Sovereign” in any sense of the word if legal process can
be maliciously and habitually abused by the government at great
financial injury and inconvenience to them in the process of questioning
or ridiculing their choice of domicile. In spite of this fact, this
very evil happens daily in state and federal courts in the context of
tax trials. We cannot restore the sovereignty of the people unless and
until this chronic malicious abuse of legal and judicial process is
ended immediately.
Below is the ONLY
definition of “residence” found anywhere in the Internal Revenue Code.
The definition does not begin with qualifying language such as “for the
purposes of this section” or “for the purposes of this chapter”.
Therefore, it is a universal definition that applies throughout the
Internal Revenue Code and Treasury Regulations. Note also that the
definition is provided ONLY in the context of an “alien”. Therefore,
“citizens” or "nationals" cannot have a “residence”. This is VERY important and is
completely consistent with the fact that the only kind of “resident”
defined anywhere in the Internal Revenue Code (see
26 U.S.C. §7701(b)(1)(A)) is an “alien”:
Title 26: Internal Revenue
PART 1—INCOME TAXES
nonresident alien individuals
§ 1.871-2 Determining residence of alien individuals.
(b)
Residence defined. An alien actually present in the United States
who is not a mere transient or sojourner is a resident of the United
States for purposes of the income tax. Whether he is a
transient is determined by his intentions with regard to the length
and nature of his stay. A mere floating intention,
indefinite as to time, to return to another country is not
sufficient to constitute him a transient. If he lives in the United
States and has no definite intention as to his stay, he is a
resident. One who comes to the United States
for a definite
purpose which in its nature may be promptly accomplished is a
transient; but, if his purpose is of such a nature that an extended
stay may be necessary for its accomplishment, and to that end the
alien makes his home temporarily in the United States, he becomes a
resident, though it may be his intention at all times to
return to his domicile abroad when the purpose for which he came has
been consummated or abandoned. An alien whose stay in the United
States is limited to a definite period by the immigration laws is
not a resident of the United States within the meaning of this
section, in the absence of exceptional circumstances.
The phrase "definite purpose"
is important in the definition of "residence" above. Those who have
a definite purpose because of their eternal covenant with God and their
contractual relationship to Him described in the Bible and who know they
are only here temporarily can only be classified as
"transients" above. This explains why our rulers in government want to
get God out of the schools and out of public life: so that the sheep
will have no purpose in life other than to serve them and
waste themselves away in vain and sinful material pursuits.
"Then I hated
all my labor in which I had toiled under the sun, because I must
leave it to the man who will come after me. And who knows
whether he will be wise or a fool? Yet he will rule over all my
labor in which I toiled and in which I have shown myself wise under
the sun. This also is vanity. Therefore I turned my heart
and despaired of all the labor in which I had toiled under the sun.
For there is a man whose labor is with wisdom, knowledge, and
skill; yet he must leave his heritage to a man who has not labored
for it. This also is vanity and a great evil. For what has
man for all his labor, and for the striving of his heart with which
he has toiled under the sun? For all his days are sorrowful, and his
work burdensome; even in the night his heart takes no rest. This
also is vanity."
[Eccl.
2:18-23, Bible, NKJV]
Only you, the
Sovereign, can determine your “intention” in the context of
"residence". Notice the words “definite
purpose”, “transient” and “temporary” in
the definition of "residence" above are nowhere defined in the law, which means
that you, and not your public servants, define them. If you do not intend to
remain in the “United
States”, which is defined as ONLY the District of Columbia in
26 U.S.C. §7701(a)(9) and (a)(10) and not expanded elsewhere in
Subtitle A to include any other place, then you can’t be counted as a
“resident”, even if you are in fact an “alien”. The government cannot
determine your intention for you. An intention that is not voluntary is
not an intention, but simply a reaction to unjust external authority.
This is the basis for why the Supreme Court said:
“The citizen cannot complain [about the
laws or the tax system], because he has voluntarily submitted
himself to such a form of government. He owes allegiance to
the two departments, so to speak, and within their respective
spheres must pay the penalties which each exacts for disobedience to
its laws. In return, he can demand protection from each within its
own jurisdiction.”
[United States v. Cruikshank,
92 U.S. 542 (1875) [emphasis added]]
The California Election Code, Section 349 further
clarifies the distinctions between “domicile” and “residence” as follows:
California Election Code, section 349:
349. (a) "Residence"
for voting purposes means a person's domicile.
(b) The
domicile of a person is
that place in which his or her habitation is fixed, wherein the
person has the intention of remaining, and to which, whenever he or
she is absent, the person has the intention of returning. At a
given time, a person may have only one domicile.
(c) The
residence of a person
is that place in which the person's habitation is fixed for some
period of time, but wherein he or she does not have the intention of
remaining. At a given time, a person may have more than one
residence.
The above definition is
consistent with the analysis earlier in this section, but don't make the
false assumption that the above definitions apply within income tax
codes, because they DON'T. Only statutory "citizens" who have a
domicile within the forum can be the subject of the above statute
relating to voting and elections, while the Internal Revenue Code
Subtitle A applies exclusively to privileged aliens who have a domicile
or tax home on federal territory: two COMPLETELY different audiences of
people, for which the terms are NOT interchangeable. A "residence" in
the I.R.C. is the temporary abode of a privileged alien, while a
"residence" in the election code is the temporary abode of a
non-privileged Sovereign American National. The worst mistake that you
can make as a person born in your country is to believe or think that
laws written only for "aliens" or "resident aliens" apply to you. The
only types of persons the federal government can write laws for in a
state of the Union, in fact, are aliens.
In accord with ancient
principles of the international law of nation-states, the Court in
The Chinese Exclusion Case,
130 U.S. 581, 609 (1889), and in Fong Yue Ting v. United States,
149 U.S. 698 (1893), held broadly, as the Government describes
it, Brief for Appellants 20, that the power to exclude aliens is
"inherent in sovereignty, necessary for maintaining normal
international relations and defending the country against foreign
encroachments and dangers - a power to be exercised exclusively by
the political branches of government . . . ." Since that time, the
Court's general reaffirmations of this principle have
[408
U.S. 753, 766] been legion.
The Court without exception has sustained Congress'
"plenary power to make rules for the admission of aliens and to
exclude those who possess those characteristics which Congress has
forbidden." Boutilier v. Immigration and Naturalization Service,
387 U.S. 118, 123 (1967). "[O]ver no conceivable subject is the
legislative power of Congress more complete than it is over" the
admission of aliens. Oceanic Navigation Co. v. Stranahan,
214 U.S. 320, 339 (1909).
[Kleindienst
v. Mandel, 408 U.S. 753 (1972)]
If you are born in a state of the Union and have a domicile there and
not on federal territory, federal laws CANNOT and DO NOT apply to you.
The only exception is if you contract away your rights and sovereignty
by pursuing a federal government benefit, such as Social Security,
Medicare, federal employment, etc. Otherwise, We the People
are Sovereign over their public servants:
"The ultimate authority
... resides in the people alone."
[James Madison,
The Federalist, No. 46.]
"... The
governments are but trustees acting under derived authority and have
no power to delegate what is not delegated to them. But
the people, as the original fountain might take away what they have
delegated and intrust to whom they please. ...The sovereignty in
every state resides in the people of the state and they may alter
and change their form of government at their own pleasure."
[Luther v. Borden,
48 U.S. 1, 12 LEd 581 (1849)]
"While sovereign powers
are delegated to ... the government, sovereignty itself remains with
the people.."
[Yick Wo v. Hopkins,
118 U.S. 356 (1886)]
"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."
[Juilliard v. Greenman,
110 U.S. 421 (1884)]
“In the United States***,
sovereignty resides in the people who act through the organs
established by the Constitution. [cites omitted] The Congress
as the instrumentality of
sovereignty is endowed with certain powers to be exerted on behalf
of the people in the manner and with the effect the Constitution
ordains. The Congress
cannot invoke the sovereign
power of the people to override their will as thus declared.”
[Perry
v. United States,
294 U.S. 330, 353 (1935)]
“The rights of the individual are not
derived from governmental agencies, either municipal, state
or federal, or even from the Constitution. They exist inherently
in every man, by endowment of the Creator, and are merely reaffirmed
in the Constitution, and restricted only to the extent that they
have been voluntarily surrendered by the citizenship to the agencies
of government. The people's rights are not derived from the
government, but the government's authority comes from the
people.*946 The Constitution but states again these rights already
existing, and when legislative encroachment by the nation, state, or
municipality invade these original and permanent rights, it is the
duty of the courts to so declare, and to afford the necessary
relief. The fewer restrictions that surround the individual
liberties of the citizen, except those for the preservation of the
public health, safety, and morals, the more contented the people and
the more successful the democracy.”
[City of Dallas v
Mitchell, 245 S.W. 944 (1922)]
The law and government
that a person voluntarily consents or “intends” to be subject to
determines where their “legal home” is under this concept. This
choice must be completely voluntary and not subject to coercion or
intimidation because all just powers of any free government derive from
the "consent of the governed", as the Declaration of Independence
indicates. This form of consent is called "allegiance" in the
legal field. A voluntary choice of allegiance to a place amounts
to a choice to join or associate with a group of people called a "state"
and to respect, be subject to, and obey all positive laws passed by the
citizens who dwell there. The First Amendment guarantees us
a right of free association, and therefore, only we can choose the group
of people we wish to associate with and be protected by as a result of
choosing a "domicile". The First Amendment also guarantees us a
right of freedom from "compelled association", which is the act of
forcing a person to join or be part of any group, including a "state".
Just as there is
freedom to speak, to associate, and to believe, so also there is
freedom not to speak, associate, or believe. "The right to speak
and the right to refrain from speaking [on a government tax return,
and in violation of the
Fifth Amendment when coerced, for instance] are complementary
components of the broader concept of 'individual freedom of mind.''
Wooley v. Maynard [430 U.S. 703] (1977). Freedom of conscience
dictates that no individual may be forced to espouse ideological
causes with which he disagrees:
"[A]t the
heart of the
First Amendment is the notion that the individual should be
free to believe as he will, and that in a free society one's
beliefs should be shaped by his mind and by his conscience
rather than coerced by the State [through illegal enforcement of
the revenue laws]."
Abood v. Detroit Board of Education [431 U.S. 209] (1977)
Freedom
from compelled association is a vital component of freedom of
expression. Indeed, freedom from compelled association
illustrates the significance of the liberty or personal autonomy
model of the
First Amendment.
As a general
constitutional principle, it is for the individual and not for the
state to choose one's associations and to define the persona which
he holds out to the world. [First
Amendment Law, Barron-Dienes, West Publishing, ISBN
0-314-22677-X, pp. 266-267]
Therefore, no
government has lawful authority to compel us to choose a "domicile" that
is within its legislative jurisdiction or to have allegiance towards it,
because that would be compelled association. The right to
choose what political group or country we wish to join and have
allegiance to and protection from also implies that we can reject all
the earthly options and simply elect to join God's followers and be
subject ONLY to His laws. This type of government would be called
a "theocracy". This, in fact, is the goal of this entire
publication: Establishing an ecclesiastical state separate from the
corrupted governments that plague our land. It is a stark reality
that what you define as protection might amount to its opposite
for someone else. Therefore, each person is free to:
-
Define
what "protection" means to them.
-
Choose to
join a political group or country that agrees most with their
definition of "protection". This makes them into "nationals"
of that country who profess "allegiance" to the "state" and thereby
merit its protection.
-
Choose a
"domicile" within that country or group, and thereby become subject
to its laws and a
benefactor of its protection.
The notion of freedom
to choose one's allegiances is a natural consequence of the fact that a
"state" can consist of any number of people, from one person to millions
or even billions of people.
The political landscape
constantly changes precisely because people are constantly exercising
their right to change their political associations. A single
person is free to create his own "state" and pass his own laws, and to
choose a domicile within that created state. The boundaries of
that created "state" might include only himself, only his immediate
family, or encompass an entire city, county, or district. He might
do this because he regards the society in which he lives to be so
corrupt that it's laws, morality, and norms are injurious
rather than protective. Such a motive, in fact, is
behind an effort called the "Free State Project", in which people are
trying to get together to create a new and different type of state
within the borders of our country. The U.S. Supreme Court, in
fact, has ruled that when the laws of a society become more injurious
than protective to us personally, then we cease to have any
obligation
to obey them and may lawfully choose other allegiances and
domiciles that afford
better protection. To wit:
"By the surrender, the
inhabitants passed under a temporary allegiance to the British
government and were bound by such laws and such only as it chose to
recognize and impose. From the nature of the case, no other
laws could be obligatory upon them, for where there is no protection
or allegiance or sovereignty, there can be no claim to obedience.”
[Hanauer v. Woodruff,
82 U.S. (15 Wall.) 439 (1872)]
If a person decides that the
laws and the people of the area in which he lives are injurious of his
life, liberty, and property, then he is perfectly entitled to withhold
his allegiance and shift his domicile to a place where better protection
is afforded. When a person has allegiance and domicile to a place or
society other than where he lives, then he is considered
"foreign" in that society and all people comprising that society become
"foreigners" relative to him in such a case. He becomes a "transient
foreigner" and the only laws that are obligatory upon him are the
criminal laws and no other. Below is what the U.S. Supreme Court said
about the right of people to choose to disassociate with such
"foreigners" who can do them harm. Note that they say the United States
government has the right to exclude foreigners who are injurious. This
authority, it says, comes from the Constitution, which in turn was
delegated by the Sovereign People. The People cannot delegate an
authority they do not have, therefore they must individually ALSO have
this authority within their own private lives of excluding injurious
peoples from their legal and political life by changing their domicile
and citizenship. This act of excluding such foreigners becomes what we
call a “political divorce” and the result accomplishes the equivalent of
“disconnecting from the government matrix”:
"The government, possessing the powers which are to be
exercised for protection and security, is clothed with authority to
determine the occasion on which the powers shall be called forth;
and its determinations, so far as the subjects affected are
concerned, are necessarily conclusive upon all its departments and
officers. If, therefore, the government of the United States,
through its legislative department, considers the presence of
foreigners of a different race in this country, who will not
assimilate with us, to be dangerous to its peace and security, their
exclusion is not to be stayed because at the time there are no
actual hostilities with the nation of which the foreigners are
subjects. The existence of war would render the necessity of
the proceeding only more obvious and pressing. The same necessity,
in a less pressing degree, may arise when war does not exist, and
the same authority which adjudges the necessity in one case must
also determine it in the other. In both cases its determination is
conclusive upon the judiciary. If the government of the country of
which the foreigners excluded are subjects is dissatisfied with this
action, it can make complaint to the executive head of our
government, or resort to any other measure which, in its judgment,
its interests or dignity may demand; and there lies its only remedy.
The power of the government to exclude foreigners from the
country whenever, in its judgment, the public interests require such
exclusion, has been asserted in repeated instances,
[130 U.S. 581, 607]
and never denied by the executive or legislative
departments.
[. . .]
The power of exclusion of foreigners being an incident
of sovereignty belonging to the government of the United States as a
part of those sovereign powers delegated by the constitution, the
right to its exercise at any time when, in the judgment of the
government, the interests of the country require it, cannot be
granted away or restrained on behalf of any one. The powers
of government are delegated in trust to the United States, and are
incapable of transfer to any other parties. They cannot be abandoned
or surrendered. Nor can their exercise be hampered, when needed for
the public good, by any considerations of private interest. The
exercise of these public trusts is not the subject of barter or
contract."
[Chae Chan Ping v. U.S.,
130 U.S. 581 (1889)]
Notice above the
phrase:
" |