The founding of this nation is a fascinating story, one filled with murder, intrigue, deaths of people who believed strongly in unalienable rights, and much grief followed by the elation of having established a Republic generally thought of as "by the people, of the people, and for the people", as so eloquently phrased by Abe Lincoln in his Gettysburg Address.
It is a nation with precepts I have volunteered to defend in the past. I would even at age 53 now fight to defend the principles this nation was founded on, the Constitution of the United States of America.
But would I fight and give my life for the "United States" as defined in the Constitution? Probably not as it is the current foe to liberty while working diligently at the destruction of our inalienable rights.
How can this be - fight for liberties but not for the "United States"? Read this: Article.4., Section.4. "The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened) against domestic Violence. (my emphasis in this and the
following quotes)
And, this - Amendment X to the Constitution 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."
And, then: Article.VI., Clause 3: "The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the
several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.
Why is this important? The "United States" is treated as a separate entity from the States making up the union. And not only is this separation in the above but also occurs in many other instances throughout the Constitution and its amendments.
Furthermore, in U.S. v. Curikshank, 92 U.S. 542, 23 L.Ed.588, the ruling was: "...a state and the federal government each has citizens of its own, and the same person may be at the same time a citizen of the United States and a citizen of a state. The government of the United States can neither grant nor secure to its citizens rights or privileges which are not expressly or by implication placed under its jurisdiction. All that cannot be so granted or secured are left to the exclusive protection of the states."
(Quoted from http://deoxy.org/ def/citizen.htm)
Then, from Nelid v. District of Columbia, 110 F. 2nd 246, 249, 71 App.D.C. 306’ Glaeser v. Acacia Mut. Life Ass’n, D.C.Cal., 55 F.Supp.925, 926, "With reference to the jurisdiction and power of federal courts and removal
of actions a Citizen of the District of Columbia is not a "citizen of a state".
Finally, the Supreme Court ruled the term, "United States", to have three uses in the 1945 case, Hooven & Allison Co. v. Evatt. One of the uses, the most oft appearing in the Constitution, is the term, United States, refers to the District of Columbia and all other federal lands, such as Puerto Rico, Virgin Islands, Guam, etc.
So, let’s treat the "United States" as created by our forefathers, the home of the "federal government". In a sense, then, what we have is the "United States (the federal government)" and the sovereign States forming a union under the Constitution, The united States of America.
The Constitution, basically an agreement between the different sovereign States, also established the afore mentioned separate central government to specific functions in service of the united States of America. In other words, the United States, the federal government housed in the District of Columbia, exists only to serve the 50 States through the consent of the people.
The federal government is currently in opposition to liberty and God-given unalienable rights which were laid down in the Constitution for all posterity. The limits of the centralized government as designed have been exceeded or ignored and continue to be by leaps and bounds. Should this be considered treason against the united States of America?
Treason is the only crime specifically defined in the Constitution. From Article 3, Section 3, Clause 1: Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.
What I am wondering is whether the term "United States" is used as meaning the federal government or does it mean united States of America (one of the other two meanings established in the above Supreme Court case). If it means only the federal government, then treason can only be committed against the government but not necessarily against the states making up the union, the United States of America.
If it means the union of States, the United States of America as established through the Constitution, then treason could conceivably be committed by the federal government against the states making up the union.
Obviously, by the phrase "levying war against THEM", and "in adhering to THEIR Enemies", the United States in this case means the States in the union, not the United States as confined to the District of Columbia, the federal government, and is the only instance found so far using the meaning of United States referring to the union of States rather than just to the federal government. Thus, one could interpret this to mean the States forming the union can have treason committed against them but, since not specified by the Constitution, the federal government cannot.
This does make sense as what would happen if the people of the 50 states decided they had taken enough from the federal government and, through strong dissention (purpose of the Second Amendment), insisted the Constitution be observed as written. It could be taken as treason. The federal government could then order the military to attack the people it is sworn to protect and base this vile action on protecting itself, the "United States", from treason.
As you have read, ‘treason’ can only be committed by helping to wage war against the States or aiding and abetting their enemies. So, how is war defined?
The pen is supposedly mightier than the sword. Are those of us who wish to see the Constitution intact as written waging a war against the United States, a war of words against those in the federal government who are removing our liberties? Or are those in government who would take away our Constitutional rights waging a legislative war against the union of States and the Constitution?
Think about this. There are two ways to completely dominate the people of a country. You could go in, blast away until all resistance is gone, and then, be free to dictate as you will.
Or, you could under the guise of better government slowly but surely remove rights by creating an atmosphere of apathy until all resistance is gone. It would take far fewer deaths but would be just as effective without all the property damage and losses. And then, of course, be free to dictate as you will.
Either way, the people in the country are made subservient to the
government and would not have the unalienable rights all mankind should have. The government of the many would have become the government of the few.
Maybe we need to expand on the meaning of treason and more clearly define what it means. By definition, "treason" means treachery, disloyalty, dishonesty, perfidy, deceit, and sedition. Perhaps we should add these meanings in a special admendment specifically for the members of the federal government.
We have had or are having our rights being removed through deceit, dishonesty, corruption, and falseness. The dominate political parties have done a great job of establishing databases (unconstitutional) on all of us that will, in the near future, tell everything about you to anyone who wants to know. In a decade or less, they will know when you go to the bathroom and whether you urinated, defecated, or both.
They will be able to tell who you are with, what you are doing, where you are, film your activities (satellite and surveillance technology enables this), know every bit of your life’s history from conception on, and have the ability to invade every bit of your life and control it either directly or indirectly. Welles’ 1984 is a walk in the park compared to what can now be done.
The right to privacy, along with other rights, has essentially been done away with by the parties having been in power. But, don’t just blame them - the American people have allowed them to act as they have. As an example, the National ID bill passed by the Republican Party was made quite public but not enough outcry stopped it from passing.
If the Republican-controlled Congress hadn’t done it, then the Democrats would have. For all practical purposes, there isn’t any difference, anyway. Greed and corruption are not divided by pseudo philosophical differences. Greed is greed and corruption is corruption and both run rampant through the United States
(the government) and the parties in control.
We have congressmen who are in office because of deceit and
dishonesty, people in government who have the morals of an alley cat with an over-abundance of sex hormones, people who respond only to who has the most money in legislative decisions, people who as corrupt as any ever depicted by those in movies, and, probably the most serious of all, people who do not support the Constitution in fact.
Not telling the truth about the IRS and the IRC, along with social security, federal reserve, and so on is as dishonest as can be. In supporting the Gestapo actions of the IRS, the government is allowing both the 4th and 5th Amendments to be violated by the IRS during so-called 'legal' audits and systematically taking away money and property of citizens.
Each takes an oath of office in which he or she swears to "protect and defend the Constitution against enemies foreign and domestic". If this oath
is violated as it is by a person in government, are they not, in fact, then, in opposition to the Constitution?
By its very nature, isn't violating the Oath of Office, in effect, waging war against the foundation of our nation, the Constitution? Aren't they in fact ignoring the Oath and the Constitution when affecting Constitutionally defined liberties and unalienable rights as granted by our Creator? And isn't affecting any right effectively removing it as written?
And, if the liberties guaranteed by our union through the Constitution are effectively removed, is it not true we would no longer be the nation our forefathers established, The united States of America, but rather, a different nation established through deceit and treachery?
Is that not just as treasonous as helping an army take over and change our Constitution to an unrecognized piece of scrap paper resulting in our nation becoming one of centralized dominance over the people - a nation controlled by a totalitarian government without consideration of unalienable rights?
Let's say we do insist on a special amendment expanding the meaning of treason with those meanings applied only to the District of Columbia, the federal government. IF the people in government have always supported the Constitution and our liberties, along with fighting to do away with direct taxes and other unconstitutional mandates, then they wouldn't have a problem (the same thing they tell us when intruding on our private lives), would they?
But, if they had not or did not support the Constitution, then, of course, we would have a means of removing them instantly from office and replace them with people who would fulfill their limited, specified duties of office, including upholding the Oath of Office.
I know many may think this is rather radical thinking but is it?
Investigate for yourself and see if your conclusion is any less ‘radical’.